Talk:New antisemitism

Archives

Proposals Page

To move forward i have created a proposals page here. This is not a straw poll. The aim of this is to discuss the technical aspects of the images themselves and not how they relate to NAS nor is it a place to discuss sourcing. The images included are all sourced in some way as being attributed to new antisemitism. Seddσn ^{talk Editor Review} 12:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Is Holocaust denial New Antisemtisim?

After all its certainly not old... Telaviv1 (talk) 12:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what the sources say, but I would guess that by itself it's more a continuation of the "old" antisemitism. If it's an attempt to exonerate the Nazis, it's "old". If it's an attempt to reduce sympathy for Zionism, it's "new". But check the sources. —Ashley Y 03:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Holocaust denial started the day World War II was over, and it has nothing to do with "reducing sympathy for Zionism". If it comes from the left or Muslim countries, or equates Israel with Nazi Germany, then it's "New". Jayjg ^(talk) 04:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Ahmadinejad seems to be denying the holocaust to reduce sympathy for Zionism here, though this is only my impression. —Ashley Y 05:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea to try to figure out what Ahmadinejad really means when he says things. I take him at face value; if he says the Holocaust was a myth, then that's what he believes. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. It's possible he's misinformed in good faith. —Ashley Y 05:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

So wait a minute -- "new" antisemitism is just antisemitism from the left (which we've already established goes back at least to the turn of the 20th century) or from Muslims (which goes back about as far)? What makes any of this "new"? csloat (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Please note, article talk pages are not the place you to "passionately advocate [your] pet point of view". Your opinion that New antisemitism does not exist is not relevant to this Talk: page. Please focus on what reliable sources say on the topic. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the abusive non sequitur, Jay. I was asking what reliable sources say on this topic, not passionately advocating anything. csloat (talk) 23:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

"The new anti-Semitism is coming simultaneously from three different directions: first, a radicalized Islamic youth inflamed by extremist rhetoric; second, a left-wing anti-American cognitive elite with strong representation in the European media; third, a resurgent far right, as anti-Muslim as it is anti-Jewish."[1] These sources are all in the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't respond to the questions I asked at all. The question is, what makes it "new"? Is it just old antisemitism coming from these sources or is there something qualitatively different about it? Or to offer an oversimplified and rather silly example, if a "radicalized Islamic youth" is standing with a member of the American Nazi party and both are discussing the Protocols, is only one of them being a "new" antisemite? Does plain old "antisemitism" not exist anymore, and all current antisemitism is "new" antisemitism? csloat (talk) 00:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Jack Fischel, chair of history at Millersville University of Pennsylvania, writes that new antisemitism is a new phenomenon stemming from a coalition of "leftists, vociferously opposed to the policies of Israel, and right-wing antisemites, committed to the destruction of Israel, [who] were joined by millions of Muslims, including Arabs, who immigrated to Europe ... and who brought with them their hatred of Israel in particular and of Jews in general." It is this new political alignment, he argues, that makes new antisemitism unique.

That's in the article too. It would be helpful to read it. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

That needed some work. He's not the chair of history there [2], although he apparently was once. That's also a weird article. It's a book review. He's reviewing Chesler's "The New Anti-Semitism" and some related books. It's not always clear when Fischer is quoting and when he's writing his own opinions. --John Nagle (talk) 02:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he was once chair of the department. He appears to be professor emeritus now. Is that particularly relevant? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Jay it would be helpful to avoid the constant insults every time you respond to me. In fact I think it would be best if you just don't. csloat (talk) 06:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Holocaust denial is holocaust denial and new antisemitism means different things to different people. Some people may think that holocaust denial is a part of new antisemitism. // Liftarn (talk) 08:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Have we suddenly turned into a forum or is a change to the article proposed? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The reliable sources we have so far don't seem to make such a connection. So far, the decades of sources seem to indicate that the meaning changes over time to be whatever the current issue is. "New" antisemitism just seems in practice to mean "current", as opposed to "historical". It's a label that's put on papers, books, talks, and articles to indicate that the subject is the present, not the past. --John Nagle (talk) 17:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

With all the disparate definitions of "new antisemitism", about all one can really say at this point is that something labeled "new antisemitism" probably isn't going to start by covering Moses vs. Ramses II, or Venetian banking. --John Nagle (talk) 17:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Holocaust denial is probably more prevalent in traditional anti-semitism from the rigth (on which side most holocaust-deniers are), New antisemitism is specifically a catch all phrase used against people who arent actually being antisemitic, thats why holocaust denial is not such a big part of it.86.156.52.67 (talk) 20:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

"Holocaust denial started the day World War II was over, and it has nothing to do with "reducing sympathy for Zionism". If it comes from the left or Muslim countries, or equates Israel with Nazi Germany, then it's "New". Jayjg (talk) 04:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC) " I believe that Jayjg has it exactly right.Elan26 (talk) 18:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Elan26

That appears to be one of the wronger things Jayg has written, and he has written a lot of them. What makes it "new" has nothing to do with its "newness", in other words, but who it comes from? Why is it called, well, "new" antisemitism and not "leftist antisemitism" or "Muslim antisemitism" then? csloat (talk) 00:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Section missing

The term "New antisemitism" first appeared actually DURING the time of the holocaust. Many pacifists who were initially sympathetic toward Jews became antisemites because they preferred to be at PEACE with Germany rather than side with the Jews. The Jewish suffering seemed a legitimate sacrifice for the purpose of world peace. This is the first time the term was coined. There is quite a bit of literature on it that can be expanded. Analogically, this is the same new antisemitism of today, where many prefer to have no conflict with the Arab world, with the Oil crisis etc, and they are willing to sacrifice Israel and the Jewish people again for this purpose of what they believe will be world peace. Amoruso (talk) 23:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The phrase "new antisemitism" is almost as old as the word "antisemitism". People always think the challenges they face are different from those faced by previous generations. See Talk:New anti-Semitism/archive 15#Data points on usage for statistics about historical usage of the phrase. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 23:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this article about all uses of the phrase, or just some specific one? —Ashley Y 23:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It's only about the current one, but the history of the term is discussed and could go back further. Amoruso (talk) 23:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

This seems like an important point which should be in the article. Telaviv1 (talk) 14:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Found a source for that. Here's an academic cite to a WWII-era meaning of "new antisemitism" in "Myth, Style, Substance and the Totalitarian Dynamic in Fascist Italy". See note 110, Ben-Ghiat, Fascist Modernities, 149, 156–7. In Dictating Demography: The Problem of Population in Fascist Italy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), Carl Ipsen traced the new antisemitism to the wider official demographic effort to create a race of hardy conquerors and childbearers; see 185–94. --John Nagle (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

No, the term “new antisemitism” was not used during the Holocaust. A term is a phrase with a stable, codified, accepted meaning. What you’re talking about is a nonce phrase. Different thing.

This happens all the time. An ordinary word like antisemitism is combined with an ordinary modifier like “new” any number of times in any number of discrete contexts, and there’s nothing in particular connecting them, and then ‘‘voila’’ – someone uses it in a specific context and because of the media moment or the political setting or the zeitgeist or whatever it takes hold, ‘‘and an incidental nonce phrase becomes a term.’’ This moment, deliriously exciting as it can be for some people, does not magically transform every random earlier instance of the nonce phrase into an example of the “term,” nor the assemblage of these random discursive moments into a conceptual lineage.

New wave cinema refers to French experimental film in the early 1960s, which played with Hollywood continuity conventions and turned them on their head. Revving up your Googlebooks engines and roaring through the Gutenberg galaxy looking for earlier instances of the nonce phrase “new wave” with relation to cinema will not produce an aesthetic genealogy; it will produce nonsense. Nor does Jean-Luc Godard have anything to do with Adam and the Ants.

Same deal with New historicism. New historicism wasn’t invented – didn’t, that is, become a ‘‘term’’ – the day someone first typed those two words in that order. It became a term in the 1980s when Stephen Greenblatt fused microhistory with Foucauldian critique and brought the resulting methodology to bear on Elizabethan literature, profoundly influencing the course of subsequent literary criticism.

Same deal with “new” lotsa stuff.

Or even more distinctive phrases, like “irrational exuberance.” Who knows, you may find it in Dickens. Certainly my heart’s darling Skimpole in ‘‘Bleak House’’ could be a bit irrationally exuberant. Rev up them googles, boys.

But “new” is an especially, ahem, ‘‘time-bound’’ word, and kind of ‘‘especially’’ lends itself to nonce use.

We went through months of mediation simply to establish that the appearance of the words “new antisemitism” in a half-century-old ‘‘Commentary’’ piece about Stalinist Russia had nothing to do with the subject of this article.

It is astonishing how effortlessly other areas of the encyclopedia escape the conceptual confusions that routinely plague this page.--G-Dett (talk) 03:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Picture

The article says this concept of 'new antisemitism' originated in the 1960s (1967 the earliest reference given) but there is picture of a Nazi cartoon from 1938. What's the deal with that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.174.152 (talk) 12:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The deal is original research; the pictures and captions (note the picture below it) appear to be making an argument rather than illustrating a concept. csloat (talk) 17:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The deal, contrary to what csloat says, is to provide a reference for comparison between anti-Semitic Nazi propaganda and images presently circulating in the Arab world. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 15:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

That is original research, Michael. Please see WP:SYN especially for clarification. Providing references for comparison that aren't provided in the available literature is clearly an original synthesis. csloat (talk) 02:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that it's not a simple illustration of the article topic. It's pushing an opinion. There's no agreement over whether it's "new antisemitism" or "old antisemitism", and no reliable sources say it's "new antisemitism". So we have to leave it out. —Ashley Y 08:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Result of Mediation

As many of you may be aware the recent mediation regarding the lede image on this page closed yesterday. I would like to clarify the situation. There is an agreement that the zombietime image is to be removed from the lede. There was no decision or agreement in regards to the use of that or any other image elsewhere in the article that includes whether it is used elsewhere. I ask you all not to continue edit warring over this and to bring the discussion to this talk page. Seddσn ^{talk Editor Review} 00:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the image. Now, let's get back to discussion. What are the good and bad points about the images inclusion in the article? We might have already gone over this in the mediation, but it would be good to hear opinions here about why it should/shouldn't be included, and the reasons. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, as has been made clear, there was no agreement to remove the picture from the article, merely from the lede. I'm not sure why you've claimed otherwise. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I only looked at the consensus for inclusion of the picture in the lead, but after clarification I see there was no consensus for or against inclusion in the main article body. That said - the page is protected now, so it's a good time to discuss where the picture should be placed, if at all. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It does not belong in the article either. We should stick to images that actually can be shown to illustrate the concept this article is about. The same is true of the 1938 cartoon and probably of the Protocols photo as well (though I understand the latter is an image from a 2005 reprint, so perhaps there will be some discussion on that one). csloat (talk) 02:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Your POV is interesting, though inaccurate, but not particularly relevant in any event. The mediation only discussed removing it from the lede, not from the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I have requested that Rlevse • Talk restore the image to the article [3], because its removal allows one side in the dispute to get what they did not get in mediation. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

How does that work? If the image is included, then the people that want the image, and one side gets their way again. I suggest you take a read of m:wrong version - just about every article protected gets complaints that it's been protected in the wrong version. Although I did remove the image, I don't personally care either way, I was just basing it on the mediation conclusion, but I see I was sort of wrong there. Now, discuss where/if the picture should go in the article and we can move forward. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 13:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that the mediation did not decide to remove the image from the article. If I am wrong about that I am sorry, but that is my understanding. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You are correct in that the mediation did not agree the complete removal of the image from the page, and also I will point ryan has said he realises this in hindsight. The reason for the protection was not as a result of a conflict with what was agreed in mediation. It was that there was an edit war and there were clearly misunderstanding of what was going on but there was no discussion occuring on this talk page. As ryan pointed out, the inclusion or exclusion of this image would leave one side or another at a a loss so it is best to discuss this here. Seddσn ^{talk Editor Review} 19:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The picture has been in this article for two years now, and there has been a long-standing consensus for its inclusion. If people want to remove it now, they'll have to come up with a new consensus, and not one that relies on misunderstanding the mediations, or on non-existent or invented image policies. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Please direct other editors to this consensus, please, rather than stating it as bald fact. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the picture has remained in the article for 2 years indicates that there has been no consensus to remove it. That, apparently is still the case. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus to remove it, but there's been no "long-standing consensus for its inclusion" either. I suppose now there's no consensus to restore it (but equally, no consensus not to). —Ashley Y 10:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

All that is needed to restore the image in the article is current consensus, and that probably exists. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any desire to repeat my reasons for opposing Zombietime yet again, but I really must take issue with this. The Zombietime image has been contentious since SlimVirgin first uploaded it in 2006, and I can guarantee that there's no consensus to include it now. CJCurrie (talk) 01:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Contentious, yes, but in the article continuously since then. It does not appear that a consensus to overturn that has yet developed. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Which is not the point, of course. Do you suppose there's a consensus to include the image now? CJCurrie (talk) 01:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The image was removed based on a misinterpretation of the mediation. There was no consensus to remove it. There still is none. Feel free to try to get a consensus for removal. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Which is not the point, of course. Do you suppose there's a consensus to include the image now? CJCurrie (talk) 01:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you suppose there was a consensus to remove it? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you suppose that it should be retained, simply by virtue of having been a contentious and disputed image since 2006? CJCurrie (talk) 04:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you suppose that it should be removed, simply by virtue of misinterpreting the result of the mediation, and then edit-warring to retain that misinterpretation? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of that last question. Could you explain what you're referring to, and how it answers in any way the question beforehand? That is, after all, the purpose of discussion. --Relata refero (disp.) 04:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Article protected

Full protected 1 week due to edit warring. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Standards for images in articles about discrimination

Image 1

Vandalized Christian grave. The grafitti says "death to the Arabs".

Is the image on the right, found in the Anti-Arabism article, a reliably sourced image showing Anti-Arabism? Please explain why or why not. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Jay, this is low-grade trolling by any standard. The real question is: if a lot of writers with links to the Arab nationalist movement described something they called, let's say, "Soft Anti-Arabism," and used this notion (according to other writers with links to the Zionist movement) as a distraction from the crimes of Arab governments, would it be appropriate for Wikipedia to place this image prominently on our "Soft Anti-Arabism" page?

Actually, that brings up the question of whether we would even have a "Soft Anti-Arabism" page in the first place, and if so, whether it would be anything but a bunch of quotes from CAMERA and MEMRI and the like condemning the whole idea... but that's another story. <eleland/talkedits> 23:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Eleland, please keep any future false and uncivil comments to yourself, and answer the question. Is the image on the right a reliably sourced image showing Anti-Arabism? Please explain why or why not. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:DNFTT <eleland/talkedits> 01:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPA:WP:CIVIL. You have no rational answer, of course, but without one, it's pretty clear why the zombietime picture will be restored to this article. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

He's made an argument, actually, to which you have not responded. Any response beginning "What argument?" will naturally be ignored. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

He's made a poor analogy to a hypothetical situation which does not exist. I've questions about a real situation: that picture is found in the Anti-Arabism article, inserted by, unsurprisingly, User:Liftarn, one of the editors who kept insisting that the Zombietime image needed better referencing. Now, what is your response, Relata refero? Is the image on the right a reliably sourced image showing Anti-Arabism? Please explain why or why not - this is an important policy question which has a direct impact on the validity of the zombietime image in this article (and many other images in other articles). Jayjg ^(talk) 06:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Have you stopped beating your wife? Now, what is your response, Jay? Please explain why or why not.

But srsly. G-Dett, on the mediation talk page, dated 15:42, 27 June 2008, and 21:21, 30 June 2008, refuted the very argument you're retreading here, in her typical equanimitous-yet-devastating fashion. If you did have an answer to her refutation, you've yet to provide it after a month and a half - and now you try to start again, from the beginning, as if you can just take mulligans until you get your way. Pick your wikilink - WP:FORUMSHOP, WP:GAME, WP:POINT, WP:TE, WP:TROLL, etc - really, they all apply. Jay, please show a little respect, and cease this disruption.

retroactively signed <eleland/talkedits> 23:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC); my bad

I'm not sure who made this comment, but if you have a point to make, please make it here. These uncivil disruptive comments are both a violation of policy, and completely unhelpful, as are the strained and irrelevent analogies. These are simple questions which will lead to further fruitful and illuminating discussion. Failure to answer is simply another failure to advance a reason to exclude the Zombietime image. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

That's Eleland there. In his first post, he brings up the relevant point that whereas "New antisemitism" is a theoretical concept, things like antisemitism and anti-Arabism are not. In this second, unsigned post, he reminds you that you brought this same argument to the mediation page in June, and I rebutted it in considerable detail, and that you never responded to that rebuttal, but are now simply reprising your rebutted argument.--G-Dett (talk) 00:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to request that this "troll" nonsense stop at once. It is perfectly possible to build a reasonable refutation to what Jay is offering without meaningless insults, unless people feel that their arguments are so weak that insults are all that are left. This is not appropriate. IronDuke 00:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, just so the point doesn't get lost in all this back-and-forth about trolling and disruption and incivility: Jay is reprising an argument that he first articulated in June, and that was rebutted in considerable detail by me with no response from him – neither then nor now.--G-Dett (talk) 00:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you link to that, please? I take it, by the way, that you agree with the point I raised? IronDuke 02:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It's on the mediation talk page. Eleland gives the time stamps above. I'm not sure I do agree with your point, but I'm certain it's a distraction, since both Eleland and I have responded substantively to the argument being re-floated here.--G-Dett (talk) 03:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I refuse to believe you are that easily distracted. So... my point might be correct? 50-50? 70-30 my way? IronDuke 00:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Every form of discrimination is a "theoretical concept", including antisemitism, anti-Arabism, Islamophobia, and New antisemitism, with various definitions, supporting incidents to buttress the concept, and counter-claims that the term is being used to suppress "legitimate criticism". Your argument was an argument, not a "rebuttal". Jayjg ^(talk) 00:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Those who say that charges of racism, islamophobia, antisemitism, etc. are thrown around too freely and serve to suppress legitimate criticism are not mounting a “counter-claim” to a “theoretical concept.” This is like saying that Depression is a “theoretical concept” because some think it’s overdiagnosed. Please let’s just use words in their normal sense. Your definition of all forms of discrimination as “theoretical concepts” is strange, strained, and not at all supported by any dictionary or other reference work I can find.

The way to tell that NAS is a theory and Islamophobia isn't is simply to look at the definitions:

New antisemitism is the concept that a new form of antisemitism is on the rise in the 21st century, emanating simultaneously from the left, the right, and fundamentalist Islam, and tending to manifest itself as opposition to Zionism and the State of Israel. (Wikipedia)

versus –

Islamophobia, noun. Hatred or fear of Islam, esp. as a political force; hostility or prejudice towards Muslims. (Oxford English Dictionary)

--G-Dett (talk) 16:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

All kinds of discrimination are a theoretical concepts, of course; how could they not be? One classifies a set of behaviors according to some conceptual organizing principle. You are confusing how well accepted a concept is with whether or not it is one to begin with. Islamophobia is a fairly recent, though reasonably well accepted, concept. New antisemitism is less well accepted. There is no difference in kind. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I know of no definition of discrimination that “classifies a set of behaviors according to some conceptual organizing principle." You've simply devised an extremely generic formulation that kinda sorta describes the theory of "New antisemitism," though badly and awkwardly, and then tried to foist it onto phenomena like racism, where, despite its vagueness, it doesn't fit.

Ironduke is having some of the same conceptual difficulties as you; reading my response to his odd list below – with especial attention to the key distinction you and he have missed, between alleged examples of a thing and defining features of a thing – may help you get your head around the problem.--G-Dett (talk) 04:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett, the only one who "is having some of the same conceptual difficulties" is, apparently, you. You seem to think that "antisemitism" is some sort of physical object, like antimony. However, it is actually a conceptual description of a set of beliefs and behaviors. Your acknowledgement that the concept of racism is "vague"; indeed, it is vague because it too is a conceptual description of a set of beliefs and behaviors, one which most proponents do not believe applies to them. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Jay, my post didn't refer to racism as vague, it referred to your formulation (“classifies a set of behaviors according to some conceptual organizing principle") as vague. And despite its vagueness, still not applying to "racism." The key distinction, once again, is between alleged examples of a thing and defining features of a thing. Many things have been described as examples of racism (or Islamophobia, or antisemitism, or homophobia, etc.), but the definition of any of these forms of discrimination does not depend on the examples. All manner of things – from negative views of affirmative action to the historical appropriation of rock 'n roll by white musicians – have been described as examples of racism, but the definition of (and recognized existence of) racism does not depend on any particular view of these things or any necessary connections between them. NAS is absolutely and fundamentally different in this respect; what you're vaguely describing as a "set of beliefs and behaviors" (leftist anti-Zionism, rightist conspiracy-mongering, Islamist opposition to the existence of Israel, focused censure of Israeli policies by Western academics) are in fact defining features of NAS – take away a certain view of these things, or more importantly take away the hypothesized links between them, and there's no "new antisemitism." NAS is a sort of meta-theory, in that through these linkages between necessary touchstones (not incidental examples) it presents an analysis of a larger situation, rather than naming a ground-level form of discrimination – which is why, for example, no one has ever been referred to as a "new antisemite." I hope this clarifies.--G-Dett (talk) 03:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, New antisemitism does indeed refer to a set of specific actions and beliefs, that don't require an overarching set of linkages. Demonization of Israel, the Jewish state, would be one of the primary examples. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

If "new antisemitism does indeed refer to a set," how can the members of this set not be "linked?" Unless we adopt some bizarre ad hoc definition of what "a set" or "linked" means, that is an outright logical impossibility. And, Jay, this article has treated the various alleged aspects of new antisemitism as "linked," at least in the view of NAS proponents, since its inception. If you really believe in this "unlinked set theory," then why haven't you objected to the article or tried to correct it? <eleland/talkedits> 21:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Policy says included images must illustrate the article. So how do we verify that this image illustrates Anti-Arabism? In this case, I believe it's obvious to everyone that death threats against Arabs are an example of anti-Arabism, but if this were disputed in good faith, we should find a reliable source that mentioned that. Also, there need to be more facts about the image. Is that Hebrew? What Hebrew words are they? What do they mean? Where was this image taken? Overall answer: borderline, room for improvement. —Ashley Y 02:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Borderline? How do we know it wasn't photoshopped? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Spray paint is cheap. Cemetery racism is easy to perpetrate and easy to fake because cemeteries stand empty most of the time. Therefore, episodes of cemetery racism should be cited form a police investigation or newspaper report. An unsourced photo is not enough.Elan26 (talk) 18:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Elan26

Huh? If someone spray paints a grave, it is "fake" unless the police report on it? Spray painting a cemetery is spray painting a cemetery either way, isn't it? Anyway, I'm not sure why this discussion is relevant here. csloat (talk) 00:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Csloat, what reliable sources indicate that this photo is an example of anti-Arabism? Which sources indicate that it is anything other than an entirely photoshopped image, or a picture faked in any one of a dozen other ways? Please recall your extremely strict sourcing requirements for the zombietime image. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Please stay on-topic for this article. Future off-topic posts will be removed.--Relata refero (disp.) 07:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

My posts are entirely on-topic, and I wouldn't recommend your trying to remove them. Feel free to remove your own, though. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I repeat, anything not directly related to this article will be moved wholesale to the appropriate talkpage. Please move on to constructive conversation. Your recommendations are irrelevant; You must have noticed that if, as here, they are neither sufficiently on-topic nor informed by policy - or indeed, the facts - then editors tend not follow them immediately. --Relata refero (disp.) 04:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Please heed Relata Refero's remarks regarding staying on topic, and please refrain from placing words in other people's mouths. It is disconcerting, not to mention uncivil. Thanks. csloat (talk) 09:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from requiring novel or invented policies for images in this article; they are disconcerting, not to mention disruptive. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I see no discussion on misapplication of policy anywhere in this section, merely attempts at comparison. --Relata refero (disp.) 04:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, please refrain from attributing positions to me I have not espoused. If you find something disconcerting, perhaps you should examine your own actions on this page. Relata, please feel free to remove unrelated comments such as these, including my own. csloat (talk) 05:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Image 2

File:Gathering of eagles.jpg

A protester at a counter-demonstration against the September 15, 2007 anti-war protest in Washington, D.C.

Is the image on the right, found in the Islamophobia article, a reliably sourced and representative image showing Islamophobia? Please explain why or why not. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It's generally accepted that if someone describes themselves as "Islamophobic", then Wikipedia may refer to them as "Islamophobic"; certainly we've done the same with "anti-Semitic". This verifies that this picture illustrates Islamophobia. —Ashley Y 02:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

As was continually asked of the zombietime image, where is the evidence that that picture taken at the demonstration claimed? Is that image, as was asserted for the zombietime image, not representative of anything but one crazy person? Was that image staged? Where are sources for any of this? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

That is just one person, but one self-described Islamophobic person. The zombietime image is also just one person, but we can't say that it's "new antisemitism". Indeed the "counterfeit Jews" thing makes it look more like "old antisemitism" to me. It shouldn't be too hard to find a reliable source linking "counterfeit Jews" to antisemitism.

Furthermore, if we did find a reliable source that linked the image to the "new antisemitism" concept, we'd have to mention the source in the caption. That way it would be clear that the link is just one particular POV of the many expressed in the article. Part of the trouble as it stands is that without such a source mentioned, the link appears objective. Would Brian Klug consider the placard to be an example of "new antisemitism"? Would Tariq Ali? If not, we need to know who does.

I've generally assumed there's no deceit in any of the pictures, including zombietime's. We don't know for sure that there isn't any photo manipulation, but the sense I'm reading from the policy section is that good faith is assumed until found otherwise. —Ashley Y 04:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we have no idea if that's an islamophobic person. It's someone holding a sign with a button on it saying "Islamophobic And Proud of It". We have no idea of the provenance of the sign, or anything else. And, rather fascinatingly, look at all the restrictions you have suddenly decided to place on any image depicting New antisemitism - restrictions that are required for no other images on Wikipedia, including the ones purportedly demonstrating Islamophobia and Anti-Arabism. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not placing restrictions on any image depicting "new antisemitism". I'm placing restrictions on any image which someone claims depicts "new antisemitism" for which we can't verify the claim. It's exactly the same as the New Statesman cover. Is that "new antisemitism"? The caption doesn't say that it is, only that two people say it is, so it's OK. Who's saying the placard is? Likewise, I would be perfectly happy if this image caption were amended to say "a protester... describes himself as Islamophobic". —Ashley Y 01:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Err, yes, of course you're placing restrictions on images depicting New antisemitism, restrictions you (nor anyone else) demands for any other images. Regarding the Islamophobia image, we have no idea whether or not the picture taker created the sign himself (it looks like it would take about 5 minutes), then had his buddy hold it for him. For all we know the picture holder is Muslim. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Please stay on-topic for this article. Future off-topic posts will be removed. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

My posts are entirely on-topic, and I wouldn't recommend your trying to remove them. Feel free to remove your own, though. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not placing any restrictions on images depicting "new antisemitism", only on an image that someone claims depicts "new antisemitism", and the only restriction is that we can verify that it really is "new antisemitism". By contrast, holding up a sign saying "Islamophobic and proud of it" counts prima facie as a declaration. If the zombietime image said "new antisemite and proud of it", that would count. The main problem with your claims is that they all rely on some form of manipulation or bad faith of the photo uploaders. I have no reason to believe that the zombietime image was manipulated, but there's no connection that has been made between it and "new antisemitism", besides the opinions of some editors.

Images are not supposed to propose new ideas. This image appears to depict someone at a demonstration holding up a sign claiming to be "Islamophobic and proud of it". There's no new idea here: if someone self-identifies as Islamophobic, then we can call that Islamophobia. The zombietime image appears to depict a placard being held with various images, some of which are fairly clearly anti-Semitic, but we don't have anything connecting that with this highly-contested "new antisemitism" idea. —Ashley Y 22:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not placing any restrictions on images depicting "new antisemitism", only on an image that someone claims depicts "new antisemitism", and the only restriction is that we can verify that it really is "new antisemitism". Have you ever recommended or seen this kind of restriction for any other image on any other page? If so, please provide examples, so we can better understand what kind of requirements you are referring to. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Jayjg, I don't think anybody questions whether the Zombietime image portrays antisemitism. The question — as you almost certainly know — is whether it represents new antisemitism. Since the very existence of new antisemitism is questioned by some, I think the issue of whether a photo is described by a WP:RS as new antisemitism is a reasonable one.

If you want to bring us pictures, bring photos of the Loch Ness monster or Bigfoot — things whose existence is asserted by some and questioned by others. A picture shouldn't be used to illustrate the Loch Ness monster unless a WP:RS described it as a photo of the monster. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 19:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Applying that method of argument, it would be reasonable to argue that the photograph does not show Islamophobia, but rather jingoism. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Malik, thanks for your response. From my perspective there are two errors in your argument:

a) The very existence of Islamophobia is questioned by some (see the article itself for more detail), and

b) How is it possible for people who deny the very existence of New antisemitism to judge whether an image is an example of it? And yet, here we are in this absurd situation, where people who deny the existence of it also claim that various images are not examples of it.

Jayjg ^(talk) 23:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

How is it possible for people who deny the very existence of flying monkeys to judge whether an image is an example of a flying monkey? Your argument is melting! Oh, what a world! <eleland/talkedits> 23:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The difference would be that multiple reliable sources have discussed and asserted the existence of New antisemitism. In the future please use analogies that are, well, analogous. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I would also add, almost all Wikipedia pictures are examples of WP:OR. The Zombietime image is the best example of what those who believe that NAS exists mean when they talk about it. It has virtually every element, all on one placard. IronDuke 00:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Jay, regarding point (a), the article quotes a few people who criticize the term "Islamophobia" – taking issue with the "phobia" part (said critics think hatred of Islam isn't "irrational"), or with the "Islamo" part (Islam is a belief system, and opposition to it shouldn't be conflated with bigotry), etc. These criticisms are almost etymological in nature – no one I know of is claiming that bigotry against Arabs and Muslims doesn't exist, and this is what the term means, like it or not. They are analogous to criticism of the term "antisemitic" because "Arabs are Semites too," or "Judeophobia" because Judaism is a belief system, and shouldn't be conflated with etc. etc. They are not analogous to the widespread and incredibly detailed debate about whether "new antisemitism" is a valid or even coherent concept. NAS is a kind of meta-concept, whereas Islamophobia is just the more-or-less-accepted baseline term for the phenomenon of bigotry against Arabs and Muslims; do you not see that? As I wrote in my detailed rebuttal of this argument the first time you floated it (a rebuttal you never responded to):

NAS is in fact not only a theory but a fairly grand sort of theory, in that it purports to offer the interpretive key to a large, multifaceted historical situation encompassing everything from the safety of the Jewish people to the fate of Zionism to the direction of Western anticolonial activism to the rise of militant Islam to the state of Middle East studies in American universities. It is not yet in any dictionary I know of, and no mainstream news outlets use it in their neutral voice as an accepted term. The word "Islamophobia" by contrast – like good old-fashioned lower-case a "antisemitism" – doesn't itself imply any historical specificity, doesn't hold that anything is "rising," doesn't purport to explain a total situation, doesn't imply that anything is disguising itself or manifesting itself as something else. It just names a recognized form of bigotry, which people of good faith may agree or disagree is operative in this or that situation.

I also mentioned it was in the OED.

Regarding point (b), this is a false paradox. Even those who are skeptical of the NAS concept can recognize when an image captures what the faulty theory is supposed to be about. I know what the Easter bunny looks like.--G-Dett (talk) 00:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett, the critics in question don't take issue with the "phobia" terminology or the "Islamo" part of it; rather, they take issue with the underlying claim that there is such a thing. MANIFESTO: Together facing the new totalitarianism, for example, describes it as "a wretched concept that confuses criticism of Islam as a religion and stigmatisation of those who believe in it." As for your argument that it is "the interpretive key to a large, multifaceted historical situation", hardly. It's a description of a fairly obvious form of bigotry; even Finkelstein admits that at least part of what is described as New antisemitism is, in fact, antisemitism - he just thinks it's a perfectly predictable sort of antisemitism, because, after all, Israel is such an egregiously horrible country, and it is populated and supported by Jews. Regarding point (b), it's not a false paradox at all; those who dispute the existence of New antisemitism believe it cannot be captured in an image, because the concept is meaningless. On the other hand, it's quite easy to capture images of the Easter Bunny (or Santa Claus), because everyone agrees on what the concept is - a mythical being with certain properties etc. As I've stated before, analogies only work when they're actually analogous. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You and I have previously discussed the MANIFESTO group letter, remember? Its thirteenth paragraph indeed describes Islamophobia as a “wretched concept.” That is as far as I know the only sourced comment appearing to challenge the very existence of Islamophobia (as opposed to the extent of it, whether it's overdiagnosed, etc.), and that one sentence does not establish that NAS and Islamophobia are comparably disputed “concepts.” Your summary of “what even Finkelstein admits” is strangely phrased and substantively distorted, and it doesn’t support your claim that NAS is “a description of a fairly obvious form of bigotry.”

You’ve lost me on point (b). Which NAS-skeptics believe the concept cannot be captured in an image? This boggles the mind. We’ve just finished a lengthy mediation in which I and other NAS-skeptics suggested various images as appropriate, and explained in detail why; in fact the mediation concluded with the selection of one such image for the lead. You described this conclusion as a complete victory for the anti-NAS faction, yet here you are now saying the anti-NAS faction categorically believes no image is appropriate. This rudderless rhetoric is leaving me seasick, and begins to seem like pure spin and strawman stuffing. At any rate if it’s us you’re speaking for, you need only review the discussions to see that you’re mistaken. If it’s someone else you’re speaking for, I’d be very curious to know who that someone is.--G-Dett (talk) 17:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding point a), MANIFESTO is indeed a significant refutation of your claim. Afshin Ellian also feels that "Islamophobia" is invoked to stifle criticism of Islam. He states "No one is trying stigmatise or lump together all the adherents of a particular faith. To repeat that constantly that is a malicious allegation."[4] Keenan Malik describes it as a "myth".[5] As for Finkelstein (and other critics), they divide incidents of New antisemitism into essentially two groups. The first they dismiss as simply "legitimate criticism". The second, examples which even they cannot deny are antisemitic, they insist are merely the regular old antisemitism, and excuse by saying "Israel's actions/existence inevitably leads to this antisemitism". So, when the zombietime image appears, those who dispute the existence of New antisemitism, but cannot deny that the zombietime image is antisemitic, insist that it's merely the old fashioned kind of antisemitism. As for point b), the NAS deniers didn't agree that images actually demonstrated New antisemitism; rather they accepted that certain images had been described as New antisemitism. That of course, is quite a different thing. And so, we are left in the same paradoxical state; those who deny the existence of NAS, and do not believe any image could actually depict it (even if images have been described as examples of it), nevertheless feel qualified somehow to decide which images actually depict New antisemitism. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Jay, I'd like to address your reading of the "MANIFESTO" and the two essays as sources, but before I do, I want to make absolutely sure that I understand your argument, and cannot be accused of building a straw man.

G-Dett writes that Islamophobia "is just the more-or-less-accepted baseline term for the phenomenon of bigotry against Arabs and Muslims," and that although some authors criticize the specific term "Islamophobia," nobody disputes that bigotry against Arabs and Muslims does exist. You write back that the "MANIFESTO," plus two essays you've linked, refute that claim.

So, to be clear: your claim is that the "MANIFESTO," plus the Ellian and Malik essays, argue not merely that the term "Islamophobia" is an inappropriate label, but that bigotry against Arabs and Muslims does not exist?

I'm trying to be extra-special-clear here, because frankly, this would be such a preposterous claim that I'm sure I've misunderstood your line of reasoning somewhere. Could you explain where I've gone wrong, and clarify exactly what it is about G-Dett's point (a) that you argue is refuted by these three sources? Thanks, <eleland/talkedits> 02:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Jay, I look forward to your response to Eleland. Regarding point (b) there’s still no paradox, just words and their meanings moving around like peas and shells. In that last move the pea moved from–

“NAS-deniers” believe "it cannot be captured in an image, because the concept is meaningless"

to –

“NAS-deniers” believe no image can “actually demonstrate New antisemitism"

– thereby shifting the criterion from the appropriate one of conceptual illustration to the inappropriate one of evidentiary proof. Please review WP:NPOV.

Here for your perusal is one of the countless times in this enervating saga where I – one of those editors you so delicately term an "NAS-denier" – describe exactly how a particular image can capture the gist of a theory I don't subscribe to:

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)

When the topic of an article is a disputed theory, Wikipedians who “deny” the theory are just as capable of evaluating the illustrative aptness of an image as Wikipedians who ardently promote the theory.

If and when someone tells you that as an “Israeli apartheid denier” you’re not qualified to comment on what images appropriately depict that subject, I trust you’ll quickly come round to the wisdom of the preceding paragraph.--G-Dett (talk) 13:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett, regarding your first point, let me give you an analogy; suppose, for example, one were a doctor who insisted that there was no such thing as Chronic fatigue syndrome. Would that person be a good candidate for providing examples of patients who had the syndrome? Regarding your paragraph describing how you can "capture the gist of a theory [you] don't subscribe to" you seem to have forgotten that we're not talking about a visual lead-in for the article. As for Eleland, he's already found a like-minded audience with which to discuss this in another forum; I'll leave him to that discussion. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Chronic fatigue syndrome is a bad example, because its existence is established by such overwhelming consensus that the same NPOV concerns don't apply. The Israeli apartheid analogy is a good example because Israeli apartheid, like new antisemitism, is a controversial concept. Do you believe you as an editor are incapable of contributing meaningfully to a discussion of appropriate images for that article? That seems to be what you're saying.

I haven't forgotten we're no longer talking about a lead-in. The post I quoted above was one of many I wrote extensively making the case for the appropriateness of the New Statesman image, and it was the only one that referred to what is specifically suited to a lead-in. You'd know all this if you'd actually read the discussions that led to the time-consuming mediation of which you were a party. At any rate, I fail to see what bearing, if any, this distinction between lead images and non-lead images has on the position of yours that we're actually debating here – which, to remind you, is your position "(b)" above. Unless you're amending that position so that it goes, people who deny the very existence of New antisemitism cannot judge whether an image is an example of it, unless it's an image proposed for the lead. Is that where you are now with your claim? Curiouser and curiouser.

Sorry if I'm slow, but I don't understand the reference to Eleland. On which page can I find a good discussion of the question he put to you?--G-Dett (talk) 04:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Eleland's been over at the Board of Outer Darkness where there is Weeping and Gnashing of Teeth. Mistake, since this gives Jay another handle to imply he's anti-semitic now.

Jay seems to recommend banning atheists from art history. A little extreme, perhaps. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Relata Refero, please restrict your comments to this article, rather than falsely describing the views of other editors. If any comments are deleted from this Talk: page, those will be the first to go. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Ooo. Feisty. I thought you were strong on the subject of discussing user behaviour on usertalkpages? Perhaps you should have put the last sentence on my talkpage, if you were interested in consistency. Still. I'd be interested to know whether I "falsely" described the absurd little argument about those who do not believe in a phenomenon being unable to illustrate it, or the reason why you now feel you cannot make a reasonable reply to Eleland's reasonable question. --Relata refero (disp.) 05:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It is a little extreme, but to be fair he seems now to have moderated his position. Atheists may author introductions to works of art history.

Jay, here was the question: Although some authors criticize the specific term "Islamophobia," nobody disputes that bigotry against Arabs and Muslims does exist. You write back that the "MANIFESTO," plus two essays you've linked, refute that claim. So, to be clear: your claim is that the "MANIFESTO," plus the Ellian and Malik essays, argue not merely that the term "Islamophobia" is an inappropriate label, but that bigotry against Arabs and Muslims does not exist? I am not a contributor to Wikipedia Review, and the thread you refer to – which I wasn't previously aware of – doesn't touch on that question. So can I have an answer?--G-Dett (talk) 12:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi G-Dett. I'm not responding to Eleland directly or by proxy. He has chosen his forum. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, a proxy is a person who acts on behalf of another person, not a person who has the same question as another person. It's a little strange to be told that you won't answer my question because of something that Eleland, a poster to a site I don't read, said there about you, a frequenter of said site. You are of course free to not respond to any question for whatever reason, even personal pique, but people trying to follow this discussion will draw conclusions from that.--G-Dett (talk) 02:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's see, I've said I won't be responding to Eleland's questions, so now you're asking them instead of him, quoting him exactly, but you're claiming not to be acting as his proxy. You are of course free to make whatever claims you like regarding your actions, regardless of how seemingly absurd, but people trying to follow this discussion will draw conclusions from that. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Jay, this is a group discussion. For private reasons having nothing to do with Wikipedia policy you have decided you're not talking to Eleland. That is your right, however childish it may seem; but it crosses over into disruptive POINT-making when you refuse, in a group discussion, to address legitimate questions if they were first voiced by Eleland. It is both false and insulting to say I'm acting as his proxy; I am confident that literate editors will not share your conceptual difficulties.--G-Dett (talk) 05:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett, calling another editor "childish" is incivility. Please stop. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

You’re quite right: Islamophobia is an extraordinarily simple, non-controversial term with essentially only one meaning. Thus, we can say with confidence that the picture at right denotes:

• an outlook or world-view involving an unfounded dread and dislike of Muslims, which results in practices of exclusion and discrimination

• Russian actions towards Afghans in the 80’s

• A French painter in the 20’s

• denying the existence of a moderate Muslim majority

• regarding Islam as a problem for the world

• treating conflicts involving Muslims as necessarily their own fault

• insisting that Muslims make changes to their religion

• inciting war against Islam as a whole

• anti-Muslim racism

• anti-Asian and anti-Arab racism

• seeing Islam as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change.

• Seeing Islam as separate and "other." It does not have values in common with other cultures, is not affected by them and does not influence them.

• Seeing Islam as inferior to the West. It is seen as barbaric, irrational, primitive, and sexist.

• Seeing Islam as violent, aggressive, threatening, supportive of terrorism, and engaged in a clash of civilizations.

• Seeing Islam as a political ideology, used for political or military advantage.

• Criticisms made of "the West" by Muslims are rejected out of hand.

• Hostility towards Islam is used to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims and exclusion of Muslims from mainstream society.

• Anti-Muslim hostility is seen as natural and normal

And there’s quite a bit more regarding this simple concept that this simple picture represents. IronDuke 16:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I’m not sure I understand where you’re going with this. The Oxford English Dictionary defines Islamophobia simply; following that simple definition, I wrote above that it “names a recognized form of bigotry, which people of good faith may agree or disagree is operative in this or that situation." You have listed as many of those situations as you can think of, for what reason I'm not sure. Is the idea that if you can list lots and lots of situations ("a French painter in the 1920s," "Russian actions toward Afghans in the '80s"), the gathering verbal clutter will indicate that the thing we’re talking about is not a phenomenon but rather a theoretical concept?

If so, you’re just confusing alleged examples of a thing with defining features of a thing. You seem to think that a critical mass of circumambient controversy renders a thing merely "theoretical." I assure you it does not. A fierce debate about whether electromagnetic influence has played a role in air disasters does not make electromagnetism itself merely theoretical. Disputed speculations about whether John Donne had bipolar disorder, or whether bipolar disorder can enhance creativity, to not make bipolar disorder itself merely theoretical. What the vast literature on racism documents, discusses, and debates in terms of attitudes toward and treatment of black people would make for a list 500 times as long as yours above; but this doesn’t make “racism” a complicated theoretical concept about views of black people as more sexual, having “natural rhythm,” never making good quarterbacks or CEOs, approaching adversity soulfully (but at the same time complaining too much about The Man), and loving to eat watermelon. Is it unsettling when white guys adopt an exaggeratedly casual (though well-meaning) manner with black acquaintances? Is affirmative action appropriate redress for the legacy of slavery and segregation? Is American economic life systemically rigged against black people? Have the canons of our national art and culture systematically marginalized the enormous contributions of black Americans? Tough questions, each linked to larger controversies, but they don’t make racism itself a complicated theoretical concept. No, it’s still just a “recognized form of bigotry, which people of good faith may agree or disagree is operative in this or that situation."

Bottom line: acknowledgment that Islamophobia exists does not require you to believe that talk of a “clash of civilizations” is Islamophobic, or that deploring the subjugation of women in Islamist regimes is Islamophobic, or that the war on terror is Islamophobic, or that Russian actions against Afghans in the 80s were Islamophobic, or anything in particular about whatever painter you’re talking about. All it requires is that you believe that bigotry against Arabs and Muslims (qua Arabs and Muslims) exists in some form somewhere, and/or has existed in other historical periods. NAS is by contrast historically specific and theoretical, and it does require you to believe that Islamist opposition to the existence of the Israeli state, Western liberal intelligentsia’s blaming of Israeli policies for the I/P conflict, vandalism by immigrant youths in Europe, and so on, are inextricably linked, and constitute symptoms of the same virus, a new mutation of an old virus, resurgent after a period of relative dormancy. Those linked things are constitutive parts, not incidental examples; take the links away and you’ll have plenty of antisemitic bigotry left over, but no “New antisemitism.” The links are the very sine qua non of the theory, and it is precisely their validity that is heavily contested.

At any rate Ironduke, perhaps the easiest way for you to understand that NAS is a theoretical concept and Islamophobia isn't would be for you simply to read the definitions:

New antisemitism is the concept that a new form of antisemitism is on the rise in the 21st century, emanating simultaneously from the left, the right, and fundamentalist Islam, and tending to manifest itself as opposition to Zionism and the State of Israel. (Wikipedia)

versus –

Islamophobia, noun. Hatred or fear of Islam, esp. as a political force; hostility or prejudice towards Muslims. (Oxford English Dictionary)

--G-Dett (talk) 17:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice discussion, if completely irrelevant.Jay, may I point out that you have several times suggested that an article talkpage be used only to discuss the article in question? G-Dett, IronDuke, please aid Jay by returning to the topic of this article. --Relata refero (disp.) 17:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting comment, if completely irrelevant. RR, we are discussing this article, and in particular discussing what standards are required for image inclusion on this and similar articles. So far the zombietime image more than meets Wikipedia's requirements. Please return to the topic of this article. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Please review the post which starts this thread. "Is the image on the right, found in the Anti-Arabism article, a reliably sourced image showing Anti-Arabism? Please explain why or why not." That is not about this article, nor is it about policy, nor is this a policy page, on which "wikipedia's requirements" are hammered out. I suggest you and the author of that post get together and work out which article you wish to discuss. --Relata refero (disp.) 04:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Please review the fruitful discussion in this section, regarding appropriateness of images, standards for images, etc., in this article, and please avoid further unhelpful comments. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

There has been none. Which is why I suggest we close this thread. That is a helpful comment, in that it keeps things on-track. An unhelpful comment derails or diverts relevant discussion. --Relata refero (disp.) 03:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Fruitful or no, with all questions answered and arguments rebutted, this would indeed be a good time to close the thread. I have three closing observations:

1. This proposal to develop special criteria for images in "articles about discrimination" seems wrong-headed to begin with. There are no special RS- or image-issues particular to them as a class. It may make sense however to consider drafting criteria for image inclusion in articles about controversial theories.
2. Relata is absolutely right that general policy proposals like this should be floated on policy talk pages, not here.
3. We should try in general to avoid major topic digressions like those above. It can be rhetorically appropriate to bring in other articles for comparison, either as good example to illustrate how to do things right, or as a bad example to point up a double standard at work in the discussion. The dismaying thing about these digressions into images from Anti-Arabism and Islamophobia is that they seem to have been introduced neither as helpful good examples nor as illuminating bad ones, but rather simply as rhetorical opportunities to keep the dispute about Zombietime alive.--G-Dett (talk) 00:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Balance

The article as it stands now gives vastly disporportionate space to critics of the concept, a proportion unusual in political concept articles on Wikipedia in general. Contrast it with Anti-Arabism, where almost no space is devoted to the many reputable academics and intellectuals who argue that antiArabism is a plitical construct designed to counter and minimalize anti-Semtitism. The disparity between the two articles is striking. Moreover, some of the categories included are very problematic. Take f, for example, the section headed Opposition to Israel not necessarily antisemitism. Why is there no section headed Opposition to Israel is necessarily antisemitic? Such a section would have as much academic support as the one that exists. Why, oh why is an article on the New Antisemitism largely devoted to denying that the phenomenon exists. When, other, comparable articles are not so slanted?Elan26 (talk) 19:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Elan26

We must be looking at different articles, because the version I see is weighted more than 2-to-1 toward the idea that there is such a thing as "new antisemitism". Scrolling down the article after the table of contents, I counted 10 screens about proponents of the concept and only 4-1/4 about skeptics and opponents.

By the way, what is the difference between the two phrases you have in bold concerning opposition to Israel? — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 20:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: After I left my note, Elan26 removed the word "not" from the second phrase. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 02:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Elan26 is clearly talking about a different article. csloat (talk) 00:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think she is talking about a different article? To me it looks like Elan26 is describing this very article. The problem I see is that this article has been the victim of pretty straight forward POV pushing, with a lot of counter arguments against the existence of the new antisemitism, to the point where a reader would come away with little idea of what the article is intended to describe to describe. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the problem is that there are a lot of arguments against the existence of a "new" antisemitism, in published reliable sources. The problem with this article is not that those arguments are represented here, but that a lot of this article is bloated with WP:SYN and WP:OR violations, trying to establish an argument for a "new antisemitism" above and beyond the actual debate that exists in reliable sources. csloat (talk) 16:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the article is a bit impenetrable, but I think the main problem is that it's severely bloated, slightly pretentious, and has a badly designed series of section breaks.

One of the main problems, and I don't think it's been raised or addressed yet, is that "New antisemitism" was largely a journalistic meme that took off after 2001, peaked a couple of years later, and has more or less dropped off the map by 2008. Yet this article presents it as a major field of academic inquiry. It does this by foregrounding and magnifying the very few statements made about the subject by academic luminaries like Bernard Lewis and Yehuda Bauer. All of the Lewis material is sourced to a nine-page journal paper he published in 2004, which in turn was based on a speech he gave earlier at Brandeis. The Bauer material all comes from an unpublished, somewhat informal departmental talk he gave at UC Santa Cruz in 2003. We present as grandiose competing historical narratives – a "third wave" of antisemitism in all of history (per Lewis) vs. a "fourth wave since 1945" (per Bauer) – what are in fact casual chronological schemes put forth in the context of topical remarks about contemporary antisemitism.

It would be interesting to see what, if any, current research is being done into the "new antisemitism."--G-Dett (talk) 15:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the article is bloated. I have suggested, below, that the entire "Political directions" section to the article be deleted because it is a quote farm, and serves no purpose but POV pushing. Removing that would be a good start at slimming the article down. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It's clear then that the Bauer stuff should be removed completely, as well as a lot of the original research peppered throughout the article. If we can focus this article on the actual discussion that exists in published sources it would go a long way to eliminating a lot of the cruft. csloat (talk) 16:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Image, or no

Is there any reason why the deleted image should not be restored to the article? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

yes. csloat (talk) 16:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I want to make sure that there is no misunderstanding. It is my intention to return the deleted image to the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"Political directions" section

The entire Political directions [6] section is a quote farm, and I think it best to remove it. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that material that isn't talking about "new antisemitism" should be removed. That would trim down the article dramatically. This really is one big WP:OR problem. csloat (talk) 16:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. I left the stuff that actually discussed "new antisemitism." I think there's a lot more in the article that should go but it's a good start. csloat (talk) 16:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay...but why did you save the paragraphs on Tariq Ali? Is far I can see he is not an expert in the subject of the article, and he is the most obviously politically biased. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

He's a reliable source directly addressing the topic of the article. csloat (talk) 18:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

discuss: Tariq Ali as source on new antisemitism

I have moved this material here to the talk page for discussion:

Tariq Ali argues that the "supposed new 'anti-Semitism'" is a "cynical ploy."

British writer Tariq Ali argues that the concept of new antisemitism amounts to little more than an attempt to subvert the language in the interests of the State of Israel. He writes that the campaign against "the supposed new 'anti-semitism'" in modern Europe is a "cynical ploy on the part of the Israeli Government to seal off the Zionist state from any criticism of its regular and consistent brutality against the Palestinians." The new antisemitism is, in fact, "Zionist blackmail," he argues, and Israel, far from being a victim, is "the strongest state in the region. It possesses real, not imaginary, weapons of mass destruction. It possesses more tanks and bomber jets and pilots than the rest of the Arab world put together. To say that the Zionist state is threatened by any Arab country is pure demagogy." He argues that most pro-Palestinian, anti-Zionist groups that emerged after the 1967 war were in fact careful to observe the distinction between anti-Zionism and antisemitism.

As far as I can see he has no qualifications to be used as a source for on New Antisemitism in this article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

He has as much qualifications as anyone else on the page. He's an expert on middle east affairs. I'm restoring it. If you start deleting everything on the page someone thinks is biased there will be nothing left. Do not delete it again. csloat (talk) 18:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

He has no academic qualifications in this area. Rather, he is a political activist. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

He's a middle east historian and his work is well respected. You are deleting well sourced content. See WP:RS to see what counts as a reliable source; his work clearly meets it. Your edits are disruptive and practically vandalism. csloat (talk) 19:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Malcom, you are probably right, at least formally. But the Tariq Ali sentence depicts quite clearly the present trend visible here in Europe, where the general extreme-left translation of Antisemitism is being depicted as a more aseptic Anti-Zionism. This is functional to an Anti-Israelism (please concede) which is, in turn, functional to the policy of Pan-Arabism. My of course questionable opinion is that Anti-Zionism, as well as Antisemitism, in the present situation are just a tool against the State of Israel. And in this sense, the citation fits perfectly.--UbUb (talk) 18:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Uh? I am new in en.wiki. But I just left it.wiki just because of repeated edita like the one of the Commodore.--UbUb (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes,UbUb, that trend in Europe (and elsewhere) is exactly the subject of this article. The simple fact is that, if you look at Tariq Ali's own article, you will see that he has published in highly partisan political journals, and not in peer reviewed academic journals; and so he is not qualified as a source in an article about an academic subject....which is what this article is. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't be daft. 90% of the sources on here are highly partisan, if not more. Why are you focusing on this one? Just because you don't like him? There is nothing in WP:RS that requires published authors to be "nonpartisan" or to be peer reviewed in academic journals. Your edits are disruptive. csloat (talk) 19:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd have supposed that discussion on "The New Antisemitism" was one of the most political and least academic topics around. I have no truck with Tariq Ali and his politics (or didn't when I last checked out what he was publishing, anyway). But there's no question his views on this are notable, and almost certainly far more significant than one-track attack-dogs for Israel such as Daniel Pipes - one is bound to suppose the latter is using the concept as a smear on ideological rivals. When we're writing an article on "New Neo-Nazis for Israel", then the reverse will apply, Daniel Pipes's analysis of what's really going on will be highly relevant, and wild accusations of neo-Nazism from the likes of Tariq Ali will be rightly consigned to the fringe. PR^talk 20:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that for this article it is important to use sources that are academically respected. Looking at Tariq Ali's own article, what I see is that he has published in some very highly partisan journals, but no mention of any academically respected publication. If there are other, non-academic sources used in the article, they should be removed. (As for Daniel Pipes, he has the record academic publication that Tariq Ali does not.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

First of all, "academic respect" is not a criterion of WP:RS. Second, Tariq Ali is quite well respected anyway; the fact that you personally don't respect him is not relevant to what Wikipedia publishes. Third, your opinion even seems quite worthless on this matter, since you don't seem to have even read him. Fourth, he is a well known commentator in such journals as the London Review of Books -- hardly a "highly partisan" journal. Fifth, there is no requirement in WP:RS that well respected authors who happen to publish in "highly partisan" journals may not be used. Sixth, Ali's Oxford education and his editorial direction of Verso and of the peer-reviewed academic journal New Left Review puts Pipes' pseudo-qualifications to shame. Seventh,this is not a contest between Pipes and Ali; this is about you removing well sourced material that you happen to disagree with and using phony whines about Ali's qualifications as a cover for your actions. Eighth, he is a highly visible commentator on these matters who has published several well regarded books. Are we through here? Please indicate your willingness to restore this material to the page so we can get it unblocked and move on. Thank you. csloat (talk) 22:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• I want to say a few words about how the current situation developed. I had suggested above [7]that I thought that the section of the article called "Political directions" was doing nothing but POV pushing. But I did not change the article because I hoped that discussion leading to consensus (one way or another) would avoid another edit war. Unfortunately, user csloat deleted the section before any significant discussion occurred, but save the most problematic paragraph from that section (the paragraph sourcing Tariq Ali), and moved it to another section of the article. I think that acting in such a way, while editing an article that has generated so much controversy, is unacceptable. After such action, for csloat then to call me disruptive is not convincing. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I deleted material which had nothing to do with "new antisemitism" based on your suggestion. If you had put back the material and stated that there should be more discussion for some reason there would not likely have been an edit war. Instead, you took the opportunity to remove material that had not been disputed and which was obviously relevant and important and well sourced. Even worse, your explanation above is that you were disrupting wikipedia to make a point -- you removed the Ali material to "get back at me" for removing the other material (which, I'll remind you, you suggested we remove in the first place!) I see your actions as completely disruptive and I'm asking you to please stop so we can get back to improving this page. Thanks. csloat (talk) 22:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV requires that we provide different views neutrally, not that we provide only neutral views. Ali is a notable source and should be included. But we would serve our readers well if we provide contextual information about this view, as we should for other views. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Ali is rather notable. He has about twenty books out. He's an secular leftist, writing from a "pox on both your houses" position. He's down on both militant Islam and militant Zionism. He blames the US for backing religious states, from the Taliban (which the US backed at one point), the Saudis, and the Israelis, and points out how this has backfired. [8]. He doesn't line up with anybody's party line, and keeps harping on things many people don't want to hear or would rather forget. --John Nagle (talk) 01:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I put a reply to Slrubenstein on his talk page, but since John Nagle raises similar issues, I am copying that reply here:

I understand your point on the New antisemitism talk page about Tariq Ali, but what I was trying to explain is something different.

The topic itself is the creation of a number of academics, and there is opposition from academics also. The views of both sides are represented in the article, all from writers with good academic credentials, and with history of publishing in academic journals. Wikipedia guidelines encourages the use of such sources when they are available [9]

Since the topic itself easily generates over heated reactions, and since there are very good academic sources, the use of Tariq Ali (a non-academic source) seems unnecessary, and incendiary. Although he is obviously notable, intelligent, and highly articulate; the paragraph sourcing him seems, to me, less a rebuttal of New Antisemitism theory, and more what proponents of the theory would regard a an example of it. If you read what is sourced to him you will see that very little of it is really a rebuttal of New Antisemitism.

Just an explanation of my thinking. Of course, if there is no support for my view, then it will get no traction. But I really think the article would be better without the Tariq Ali paragraph, and still fully represent both sides. I am not trying to remove criticism of New Antisemitism from the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I want to point out that my objection is not to Tariq Ali, but to the paragraph sourced to him which is incendiary, and consists mostly of accusations. Perhaps that paragraph does not represent him fairly. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether it fairly represents him; what matters is that he is a notable and well known source with a notable opinion on the topic that is published in a reliable source. Your opinion that it is "incendiary" is really beside the point. See my points 1-8 above. csloat (talk) 21:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course Tariq Ali is notable. But being notable does not establish that he has expert knowledge in this area of knowledge. Why would a quote from him be any more helpful for understanding New antisemitism than, for instance, a quote from Oriana Fallaci [10]?

Ali's opinions on this topic are indeed notable. Fallaci's may be as well (though the quote you link to does not discuss "new" antisemitism; the rest of the article, however, does). I am not the one suggesting we compare the two. Again, where in WP:RS does it state that only "experts" in a particular area of knowledge (defined only by wikipedia editors, presumably?) are acceptable? csloat (talk) 19:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to take a step back and acknowledge that – given the inextricability of the discourse of "new antisemitism" from the dispute over Israel/Palestine – pretty much all sources on the subject are going to be partisan, all of us are going to have our preferences among them, and our preferences are not going to be absolutely reducible to scholarly achievement.

The main problem with this article is still the one I noted above: a meme that had momentum for a time among journalists and popular writers is being repackaged as a major scholarly debate. This distortion has been accomplished by stitching together the few comments by major scholars touching on the controversy, and putting these under a giant magnifying glass. Not big enough to burn them like ants but big enough to seriously exaggerate their scholarly input into what was largely a sort of op-ed-page grudgematch – a match that started in 2001 and was already winding down by 2005. The Bauer piece is a classic example of this: it's not even a scholarly paper per se, but rather an unpublished and rather informal set of remarks he gave at a departmental conference at UC Santa Cruz, and he never even uses the term "new antisemitism." Why doesn't he use it? Probably because, as a serious scholar, he recognized the topical faddishness of the meme and chose instead to discuss some of the issues without descending completely into the op-ed-page grudgematch of the week.

This distortion resulted from an entirely understandable mistake in the crafting of this article, because one naturally looks for the best possible sources. And yes, Bauer and Lewis and Krug are more serious writers than Foxman and Chesler. But the fact is that the theoretical formulation and dissemination of the concept of "new antisemitism" is much more the work of writers like Foxman and Chesler, and a dozen or so other pundits and journalists, than of the scholars who have touched on the controversy here and there in largely informal remarks. (Finkelstein and a few others have addressed it in longer works written within the heart of their disciplinary expertise, but they are the exception.) This is a very detailed and informative article, but it does mislead the reader in this respect.--G-Dett (talk) 01:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett, I don't think this article is "detailed", nor is it "informative". The description of what New antisemitism actually means (as a subject, not as a political position) is pretty much limited to two short paragraphs in the intro. Then there follows a discussion of its history -- which you say is wrong. Then comes a series of arguments, for and against, by several scholars, and a political activist, that serve to confuse the subject instead of clarifying it...and which is a quote farm to boot.

It seems to me that editing has gotten so involved in argument over the correctness of the theory that no space in the article has been given to just explaining its claims. Something needs to be done to make clear what this article is about. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

This article is pretty bad, it's true, but it's not for lack of explaining what "new antisemitism" is or might be. I think the first four paragraphs are reasonable on this although they could go into more depth. The problem is, I think, that it is a disputed concept and it is one, as G-dett points out, without any real basis in academic research. It's a euphemism that comes out of op-ed pages that is used to conflate racism with political activism. This is fine -- there are many such neologisms all over Wikipedia -- but it is then distorted further by Wikipedia editors who insist on treating it as a measurable and observable entity discussed in scholarship rather than as the political football it is. Applying such criteria as "expertise in this field" to writers such as Ali (who is anyway a historian of the Middle East with plenty of expertise in this general area, as has been shown above) is a good example of that. csloat (talk) 19:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the intro says:

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, and that together with an international resurgence of attacks on Jews and Jewish symbols and an increased acceptance of antisemitic beliefs in public discourse, such demonization represents an evolution in the appearance of antisemitic beliefs.

That is pretty much all the explanation a reader of this article will get.Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

If you don't think that's deep enough, add more depth as I suggested above. I don't see how deleting an entirely separate paragraph of legitimate criticism of the concept from a well established authority is going to improve that particular paragraph.csloat (talk) 01:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The Tariq Ali sourced paragraph has no place in this article, unless (perhaps) as a well articulated example of new antisemitism. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

That is an interesting opinion but if you don't have a reliable source making the claim we cannot use it. I've explained patiently (points 1-8 above) why Ali is a notable source to be included in the article. Do you accept that or are you going to keep edit warring when the article in unprotected? csloat (talk) 13:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I have made it clear that I oppose the paragraph sourced to Tariq Ali. Since Earl Raab, Steven Zipperstein, and (particularly) Norman Finkelstein, make the same criticism of New Antisemitism as Tariq Ali; the only thing that his paragraph adds to the article is the soap boxing [11] accusations against the state of Israel, which have no place in the article at all. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes you've made it clear but I've given you eight reasons that you are wrong, and you haven't answered a single one of them. This isn't about listing accusations about Israel, it's about notable criticism of a "theoretical" concept. You said above that "if there is no support for my view, then it will get no traction." There appears to be no support for your view. Will you continue to be obstinate about this when the page is unblocked or will you go with the consensus? csloat (talk) 14:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it is clear that we are far from agreement. Rather than continuing to make accusations against me, which is not helpful, are you willing to find a compromise? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify further my objection to the paragraph sourced to Tariq Ali, I have broken the paragraph down into its seven sentences. If it is read in this way, it is easy to see that every sentence -- except one -- seems to be mostly accusations against Israel and/or Zionism. The paragraph does not actually discuss New Antisimitism at all, but uses New Antisemitism is as a launch pad for SOAP attacks on Israel and Zionism.

The only exception is the last sentence, which would be okay to keep in the article.

• British writer Tariq Ali argues that the concept of new antisemitism amounts to little more than an attempt to subvert the language in the interests of the State of Israel.

• He writes that the campaign against "the supposed new 'anti-semitism'" in modern Europe is a "cynical ploy on the part of the Israeli Government to seal off the Zionist state from any criticism of its regular and consistent brutality against the Palestinians."

• The new antisemitism is, in fact, "Zionist blackmail," he argues, and Israel, far from being a victim, is "the strongest state in the region.

• It possesses real, not imaginary, weapons of mass destruction.

• It possesses more tanks and bomber jets and pilots than the rest of the Arab world put together.

• To say that the Zionist state is threatened by any Arab country is pure demagogy."

• He argues that most pro-Palestinian, anti-Zionist groups that emerged after the 1967 war were in fact careful to observe the distinction between anti-Zionism and antisemitism.

If you can write a paragraph that actually discusses Tariq Ali's views on New Antisemitism, I would not oppose it being in the article. The paragraph in dispute seems just a soap boxing attack on Israel and Zionism, and has no place in this article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous; it has nothing to do with soapboxing; it clearly states Ali's opinion on the matter. I'm not opposed to removing some of the redundant stuff and shortening the paragraph -- by all means -- but stop pretending that Wikipedia is endorsing Ali's view by reporting it. By your logic, we should eliminate a lot of the quotes on the other side, since they are attacks on people the authors consider "new antisemites." Since a lot of what this article is about is how criticism of Zionism gets turned into a bogus accusation of racism, such quotes are of course directly relevant to the article. You are suggesting we remove such quotes on one side of the debate and not the other -- that, my friend, is the very definition of POV-pushing. csloat (talk) 19:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I am not sure why we are only discussing Tariq Ali's academic qualifications; there are at least half a dozen political activist sources quoted in this article, most with fewer credentials than Ali. Forster and Epstein are not authorities on the subject, nor is Chip Berlet. Irwin Cotler is quoted as a law professor; some might consider it more relevant that he's a lifelong political activist who controversially swerved Canadian policy towards Israel during his tenure as Justice Minister, that Alan Dershowitz calls Cotler "my mirror image," that Cotler likened the World Conference against Racism, for its criticism of Israel, to 9/11, Kristallnacht, and Mein Kampf all in the same sentence, etc.[12] ...but all that said, fine, we can use Cotler - he represents a notable point of view, regardless of my own personal view of it, and regardless of his lack of academic qualifications in the area. But we can't keep using Cotler et al while cutting out Ali; that's just blatant partisanship. This is a politicized issue, which means that to cover it adequately, we'll need to include politically controversial views of politically activist sources. I can accept the view which says that Wikipedia should exclude such sources, even if it means we won't have comprehensive coverage of these type of "bleeding edge" political controversies. I certainly can't accept the idea that only critical political sources should go, while the supportive ones should stay. <eleland/talkedits> 20:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Eleland that this laser-like focus on Ali is strange and unexplained. But I'd like to reiterate my position that I think all of these sources – from partisan academics like Ali all the way down to the obscure pundit & wikipedian Chip Berlet – are fine sources for this article, because it is after all about a faddish journalistic meme now well past its sell-by date. What is dubious is our extensive use of – and exaggeration of the scope and significance of – passing comments on the meme by major academics. There are undoubtedly many academics who have commented on Britney Spears (in the context of modern celebrity, cultural representations of women, and so on), and some of these may merit a mention, but we don't build the Britney Spears article around inflated citations from talks given by ivy league professors at last year's MLA conference; main sources rather would be things like Rolling Stone, MTV, who knows perhaps even Berlet's alma mater High Times.--G-Dett (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Ha! Finally I disagree with G-Dett on something. I personally would be extremely happy if this and similar articles were exclusively sourced to passing comments in articles by academics; that would be a very accurate representation of the encyclopedicity of such passing memes. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett, I see you have gotten bored with making personal attacks on other editors, and have branched out to personal attacks on sources as well. 6SJ7 (talk) 02:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Can a fictional character be a reliable source? I would like to quote my man Henry:

Life, friends, is boring. We must not say so.
After all, the sky flashes, the great sea yearns,
we ourselves flash and yearn,
and moreover my mother told me as a boy
(repeatingly) "Ever to confess you're bored
means you have no

Inner Resources." I conclude now I have no
inner resources, because I am heavy bored.
Peoples bore me,
literature bores me, especially great literature,
Henry bores me, with his plights & gripes
as bad as Achilles,

who loves people and valiant art, which bores me.
And the tranquil hills, & gin, look like a drag
and somehow a dog
has taken itself & its tail considerably away
into the mountains or sea or sky, leaving
behind: me, wag.

Henry never bores me. Nor do you, 6SJ7.--G-Dett (talk) 03:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I am in favor of removing all material in the article based on sources that do not have academic qualification on this subject, and regardless of which side of the issue they are on. I said that above, but it may have gotten lost in the discussion of Tariq Ali. The entire article is blotted, and is a quote farm. But I would like to have deletions discussed and agreed upon....not preemptively deleted as csloat did with the "Political directions" section. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? I only deleted material that did not mention new antisemitism at all. And I only did so after you pointed out that the material should be deleted. Was there any of it you wanted to keep? Please indicate what and explain your reasoning why; we can certainly discuss that. You are the one who preemptively deleted material without discussion, and you then edit warred to keep deleting it in spite of the fact that the consensus supports keeping the material in. If you just deleted Ali because you were mad that I deleted the other stuff, you are disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and you should apologize and stop doing that. But if you really think Ali should be deleted from the article, you should answer the 8 arguments I made in favor of keeping him in, as well as the other cogent arguments made by several other editors here, and try to work toward convincing us and establishing a new consensus. G-Dett in particular has made a very persuasive case that your insistence on "academic qualifications on this subject" is quite backwards; this is simply not a subject with any real academic standing. You have yet to address any of these arguments. csloat (talk) 21:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

csloat,you deleted an entire section before any discussion had occurred, which is never a good idea...and particularly not in an article, such as this one, with a history of disputes.

You also have included unfounded accusations directed at me in virtually every edit you have made in recent days (quite a few edits), and you also continue your unfounded negative suppositions about my intentions. That is incivil WP:CIVIL, and you are failing to assume good faith WP:FAITH. I would appreciate it if you would stop your incivility. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You are again making false statements Malcolm. I did not delete an entire section before any discussion had occurred; I deleted part of a section after you yourself had started a discussion and advocated deletion! And to this date there has been not a single specific complaint with any of my deletions -- not even from you, and I have invited you to explain any objections you have to any material I deleted. You have chosen not to. The only thing anyone has complained about has been your deletion of Ali (and to be clear, the consensus seems unanimous against your deletion of that material). I have not speculated on your intentions; I have just described your actions. There is nothing uncivil about that. Since you have dropped your objections to the material at hand -- or, at least, you have refused to respond to the arguments against deletion of the material -- can we now assume that when the material goes back in the article you will not start another edit war? Thanks. csloat (talk) 04:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Nothing has changed. There is no consensus. I have, in fact, explained my views on the paragraph sourced to Tariq Ali many times. I am happy that you finally have written an edit that is free of incivility; but, aside from that, there is nothing constructive in it. In fact you are saying that you think you can force your preferred version into the article, and you seem unwilling to compromise. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Calm down, people. Agreed that Ali is not an academic. But if we are only to quote academics, why do we have so much from Chip Berlet, a college dropout and former editor of High Times? --John Nagle (talk) 16:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

There is clearly consensus Malcolm; you are the only editor arguing for censoring this paragraph. csloat (talk) 16:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Would you be willing to remove both? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

We'd need to remove a lot more than that. If we remove everything by non-academics, 90% of this article would go (and, as G-Dett points out, this is not an academic topic. It is not the product of research. It is a partisan media football. And, frankly, Ali might have to stay in, depending how we define "academics" -- he's a historian who has published dozens of books on numerous topics, and is an editor for a peer-reviewed academic journal. So it is not even clear that he should be removed according to your arbitrary academic standard. But in any case, your standard is not supported by any Wikipedia policy. csloat (talk) 16:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It is clear that you are still completely unwilling to compromise, so I will withdraw the offer. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I explained the logical implications of your suggestion. I am not unwilling to remove everything but academics from this page, but as I said it would remove 90% of what is here (and probably leave Ali in place). At that point the article would go to AfD since it is not an academically recognized or respected subject. Is that your goal? csloat (talk) 17:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

My 2 pfennigs, since Malcolm asked me to comment:

• The notion of a "new anti-semitism" is largely the creation of politically "engaged" (as the French say) writers, so authors such as Arnold Forster and Benjamin Epstein are the type of source that would be used
• The problem, of course, is that the concept is a political broadside directed against pretty broad target--basically almost the entirety of the left, some of the right, and pretty much anyone who has been critical of Israel and/or supportive of the Palestinians movement.
• As we know, when there are political broadsides directed against broad targets, the targets (themselves generally hardcore engages tend to counterattack, often ad infinitum. Thus starts the cycle. Tariq Ali would fall into the category of an angaged responder to the broadside.
• The article is full of such back and forth, and that may be just what the article should be. Any article whose subject matter is a highly charged, polemical broadside might have no other structure.
• For godsakes, get rid of that completely gratuitous bit from Berlet. None of the sources that get cited (the same ones that seem to get cited all over WP) mention anything about "new antisemitism." I fully understand, of course, that no article about a contentious political topic is complete without commentary from Berlet sourced to either his organization's self published crusader mag or any number of righteous lefty pubs he is carried in, but at least let it be something where he actually uses the phrase that is the title of the article in question. Ding, there's the bell, back to our match! Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 17:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Good stuff, Boodles.--G-Dett (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that legitimate questions about the reliability and relevance of a source are one thing, and gratuitous swipes at a person (identified by his real name) are something else. Or to put it another way, I think the comments above about Mr. Berlet (of whom I know little) are beginning to veer into WP:BLP territory. 6SJ7 (talk) 18:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

6SJ7--a recent ruling by Silky Johnson, VP in charge of BLP issues confirmed that my cheap, pathetic, and indeed moronic attempts at satire and levity do not fall within the BLP guidelines. However, Wikipedia does contain a handy resource in which you can find a lifetime's worth of assorted gratutious swipes for your every need, collected here. I think they are all royalty free. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 18:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

As Ralph Kramden might say, you're a regular riot, Boodles. Well, he would say Alice, not Boodles, but you know what I mean. However, as they say in the military, this is above my pay grade; I will let one of the 1,000+ editors with "titles" decide whether your comedy routine has any policy implications. 6SJ7 (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem with Tariq Ali would remain even without the change I have suggested. The Tariq Ali paragraph is not acceptable because it does not does not discuss New antisemitism; but it is, rather, just a verbal attack on Israel and Zionism. I explained this already (above) and am copying it again here:

Just to clarify further my objection to the paragraph sourced to Tariq Ali, I have broken the paragraph down into its seven sentences. If it is read in this way, it is easy to see that every sentence -- except one -- seems to be mostly accusations against Israel and/or Zionism. The paragraph does not actually discuss New Antisemitism at all, but uses New Antisemitism is as a launch pad for SOAP attacks on Israel and Zionism.

The only exception is the last sentence, which would be okay to keep in the article.

• British writer Tariq Ali argues that the concept of new antisemitism amounts to little more than an attempt to subvert the language in the interests of the State of Israel.

• He writes that the campaign against "the supposed new 'anti-semitism'" in modern Europe is a "cynical ploy on the part of the Israeli Government to seal off the Zionist state from any criticism of its regular and consistent brutality against the Palestinians."

• The new antisemitism is, in fact, "Zionist blackmail," he argues, and Israel, far from being a victim, is "the strongest state in the region.

• It possesses real, not imaginary, weapons of mass destruction.

• It possesses more tanks and bomber jets and pilots than the rest of the Arab world put together.

• To say that the Zionist state is threatened by any Arab country is pure demagogy."

• He argues that most pro-Palestinian, anti-Zionist groups that emerged after the 1967 war were in fact careful to observe the distinction between anti-Zionism and antisemitism.

If you can write a paragraph that actually discusses Tariq Ali's views on New Antisemitism, I would not oppose it being in the article. The paragraph in dispute seems just a soap boxing attack on Israel and Zionism, and has no place in this article.

Although Tariq Ali says the words "new antisemitism", but he does not discuss it (aside from the in last sentence) in the paragraph sourced to him. If he is going to have a paragraph in this article, you need to find something where he actually discusses what this article is about. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

He is clearly discussing new antisemitism in the paragraph. We can shorten the paragraph, but you cannot have this both ways. If "new antisemitism" is about criticism of Zionism, it is likely that critics of Zionism will have something to say about "new antisemitism." It may be your opinion that he really doesn't mean "new antisemitism" when he says "new antisemitism," but absent a reliable source confirming that opinion it really has no bearing on this article. csloat (talk) 19:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that this "soap boxing attack on Israel and Zionism" is hard to find in the actual text that M. Schosha quotes; all he says is that Zionism exploits fear of antisemitism and that Israel has military superiority in the Middle East. Condemnation of "soap boxing" is particularly strange, given that we are addressing an explicitly political topic where everybody is on a soap box. Perhaps he misinterprets "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" to mean "Wikipedia does not report the opinions of notable sources if they personally irritate individual Wikipedians." <eleland/talkedits> 20:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I am saying that this paragraph does not do anything to explain the defects of New Antisemitism, which is what (apparently) it intends to do. It does include some accusations of Israel and Zionism. But what do we know after having read the paragraph than we did not know before reading it? Just that Tariq Ali does not like Israel or Zionism. So what? A reader of the article should get something from that paragraph to explain New Antisemitism, or some way to understand what New Antisemitism is, and instead the reader just gets Tariq Ali's attitude. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

What we get is a well respected historian's views on the notion of a "new antisemitism." We might disagree with those views, but they are notable and belong here. csloat (talk) 22:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Show me that he is notable for his knowledge of New Antisemitism. There are plenty of notable people in the world. Why is his view helpful to this article? What does he say in that paragraph that is not already said more completely by other writers who are in the article? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Please. Show me that any source on this page is "notable for his knowledge of New Antisemitism"?! It's not a concept with any real substance outside of media punditry, so there are no "experts in the field," because there is no such field! He is a noted historian and journalist of Middle East issues commenting on an issue that has been used to distort the debate about the middle east! How many times must this be pointed out to you? csloat (talk) 22:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Brian Klug is Senior Research Fellow & Tutor in Philosophy at Oxford and is associate editor of Patterns of Prejudice, a peer-reviewed journal examining social exclusion and stigmatization. Norman Finkelstein is a political scientist and author, whose primary fields of research are the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the politics of the Holocaust. Bernard Lewis is an historian who specializes in the history of Islam and the interaction between Islam and the West. Yehuda Bauer is a historian and scholar of the Holocaust. These are writers with an expert knowledge of the Jewish people, and of the history of antisemitism.

On the other hand Tariq Ali is a leftist political activist. As I have said, his views seem more an example of New Antisemitism than an analysis of it. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Tariq Ali is a historian and journalist who edits a peer-reviewed journal. He has written some two dozen books and his expertise on middle east affairs has been notable. You can pick and choose different things if you like but that doesn't change the reality. I've repeated this over and over again; I don't expect to continue. The consensus here is clear, please abide by it. csloat (talk) 04:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The subject of this article is not middle east affairs. The subject is New Antisemitism, which some scholars claim exists, and others disagree. Tariq Ali's expertise in middle east affairs has no relevance in this article, and he has no special knowledge of antisemitism...new or otherwise. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• By the way, the "Political directions" section, deleted by csloat, was the only section of the article that would have accommodated the Tariq Ali paragraph. That section seems to have been intended to allow a place for political views on an otherwise non-political subject. No doubt that is the reason the Tariq Ali paragraph had been located in that section. I think it is just as well that section is gone, but without it there is no place in the article for a political activist such as Tariq Ali. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Some scholars claim Bigfoot exists too, but it has never been observed and researched in a scholarly manner. So there are no scholarly experts on "Bigfoot," just like there are none on "New antisemitism." Ali's expertise is as good as anyone else quoted here. Your second paragraph makes no sense. This is not an "otherwise non-political subject"; it is political through and through and it is basically a topic flayed by pundits in the media. Also I did not delete the section, I just deleted the extra heading, which was redundant ("The left and anti-Zionism" is still "political," and Ali's comments were on point there). As you know, this article is filled with quotes from "political activists," so why are you singling out Ali? Anyway, the consensus is pretty clear here; I suggest you move on. Thanks. csloat (talk) 16:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Csloat, following your line of thought is quite hard. You say T.A. has expertise in middle east affairs - granted, I personally do not often read his ideas, but I assume you are right. But what's the connection to new antisemitism? It happens in Russia, US, and for all I know maybe in the FarOer. So what's the use of his expertise in middle east affairs? less than zero. And, really, your comment on Bigfoot, to my eyes, is an insult to another contributor. Would you please refrain? Thanks.--UbUb (talk) 18:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

First, see my points 1-8 above which have yet to be addressed; I am building on those points so it might help with following my points. Second, the reason ME expertise is relevant here is that "new antisemitism" is apparently about criticism of Israeli policies and of Zionism; it is not really about "antisemitism" per se, at least according to the advocates of that position here on Wikipedia. Third, I have consistently been pointing out that this is not an area that has any real existence as an academic subject. There are no peer-reviewed studies of "new antisemitism." My comment about Bigfoot was precisely on point, and was not meant to insult anyone. It is not about whether it is "serious or BS" -- a lot of people take Bigfoot quite seriously, and a lot of other people think it is a big hoax; I don't mean to judge either side. The same is true of "new antisemitism," though the fact is that the latter has been subject to even less scientific or academic analysis than Bigfoot. Thus, the question of Ali's "expertise" on ME affairs or antisemitism or anything else is simply a red herring. This is a political topic debated by media pundits, a scarce few of them who also have academic credentials. The fact that Ali has academic credentials as well is not relevant one way or another, but I am refuting the claim by Malcolm that he does not. As an editor of a peer-reviewed academic journal about left politics, he is well qualified to enter into this discussion. csloat (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

To csloat. Unfortunately I do not see points marked 1 to 8, but I probably understand what you do mean. To simplify, new antisemitism is NOT an aspect of antizionism, old or new (meaning : ideological or political), nor it is an aspect of criticism of Israeli policies. It is e. g. the denial of Holocaust by Mr. Ahmadinejiad. It is the kid in southern Italy who asked me whether Jews (not Israelis) still used to kill Messiahs (difficult to construct a plural, here). It is the taxi driver in Alexandria, Egypt, who told my wife (born there, expelled in 1963 and returned for my work duties) that finally the jews were all gone (Judenrein, not even true), etc. Re the academic subject, probably you are right, this is not (yet?) a subject for a semester - but it exists nevertheless. We may discuss it here, at Cambridge, possibly not at Tehran university, I dare say. Therefore, your assertion that as an editor ... he is well qualified, etc. just does not make sense. You cannot simply devitalize an issue removing it from real life to place it in a crystal palace where academics discuss the sex of angels. --UbUb (talk) 20:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, UbUb, the examples you give seem more to be plain old run of the mill anti-semitism in which hatred is expressed directly towards Jews. The concept "new anti-semitism" posits that there is a disguised form of anti-semitism that masquerades as opposition to Israel, support for Palestinians or various third world struggles, anti-imperialism, etc. Similar, perhaps, to the belief that opposition to affirmative action is really a disguised form of racism. And opponents of the concept of "new anti-semitism" generally believe that those who use the term are really exhibiting a disguised form of anti-Palestinianism, anti-third Worldism, anti-progressivism/leftism/communism, etc. So at least both sides are united in the belief that the other side is devious!Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 21:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sex with angels, who is being insulting here? Here are the "points 1-8" that I keep referring to. Boodles is of course quite correct, Ubub, you have a lot of examples of "antisemitism," but none of "new antisemitism." And it is the latter that has been clearly identified with anti-Zionism and criticism of Israeli policies. And it is not a concept that has been studied academically, therefore it makes little sense to insist on academic expertise before allowing someone to comment on the topic. So your insulting comment about sex with angels makes little sense here since I am not the one advocating that one must be an "expert" in order to comment; I am advocating the reverse -- this is a phenomenon among media pundits, and Ali is no less qualified than anyone else on this page to have an opinion about this topic. csloat (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I was discussing of the effect of the new antisemitism, quite the same of the good old one, not of the roots. The roots are clear, and it is not this discussion that will change them. IOW, the New Left, Mahmoud Ahmadinejiad, and whoever are igniting, but it is the common person who is translating into practice. And I am not particularly scared about the occasional strongman, rather by the effect of his actions towards persons not particularly trained to critical thought. - ah, by the way, there is a difference between of and with, don't you think?--UbUb (talk) 09:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that either the "new antisemitism" is something qualitatively different than "antisemitism" or it isn't. If it isn't, as you seem to be advocating, then this article should be merged into antisemitism. But the text of this article argues differently. csloat (talk) 11:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If I may intervene very briefly here. I am wary of my point about scholarly v. non-scholarly sources becoming a kind of proxy for the argument about whether NAS is serious or BS. This is not what I intended. I realize that my Britney Spears example may have been construed as suggesting that NAS is trivial pop-culture nonsense, but it wasn't meant this way at all. It was a reductio ad absurdum the point of which was only that it is not always the case that we should prefer scholarly sources over popular ones.

Perhaps I can clarify the point by providing a very precise analogue, a "concept" closely parallel to NAS, and one that I happen to endorse, and yet still feel is more of a popular concept than a scholarly one. There is currently no article on Neo-McCarthyism, but the available source material on it is comparable to that for NAS, and would certainly support it. After 9-11, many left-leaning popular sources began discussing "neo-McCarthyism" with regards to the debate about Israel-Palestine. They refer to things like Campus Watch's collection of "dossiers" on professors critical of U.S. and Israeli policies, the increasingly promiscuous use of "antisemite" as an epithet, the organized campaigns to deny tenure to pro-Palestinian professors, Congressional bills proposing to make Middle East studies centers in U.S. universities subject to political oversight, and so on. I happen to think "neo-McCarthyism" is a pretty apt moniker for the sort of things it's been used to describe. But it isn't primarily a scholarly concept. To be sure, a number of scholars have commented on it, used the term and so on, but – just like with "new antisemitism" – they tend to do so passingly, in the pursuit of other more rigorous arguments. This is natural enough; modern scholarship tends to be very wary of sweeping generalizations, abstract trans-historical comparisons, talk of dormant "viruses" or "specters" rearing their ugly heads, etc. Such memes may be thought-provoking, defensible rhetoric, fair comment, and so on – without however constituting the sort of materially rigorous analysis characteristic of accepted scholarship. Understanding this distinction should have nothing to do with whether or not we subscribe to the concept in question.--G-Dett (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett your view that New Antisemitism is not being a scholarly concept is contradicted by the article itself. You might want to read History of the concept: [13]. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you please cite the peer-reviewed studies that measure "new antisemitism" as an observable phenomenon? I must have missed them when I re-read that section of the article. csloat (talk) 22:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I already listed, above, the scholars who seem qualified to speak on New Antisemitism who are already in the article. Do you contest the qualifications of Jack Fischel, Pierre-André Taguieff, Irwin Cotler, Brian Klug, and Norman Finkelstein? Those are all writers with substantial knowledge of Jewish history, and of antisemitism in its historical and social asapects.

The journal Tariq Ali is associated with is the New Left Review. What standards they use for peer-review I do not know, but the WP article describes the New Left Review as a "political journal" which aims at "the reestablishment of Socialism as a viable force in English working-class politics." In what way does being on the editorial board this journal qualify Tariq Ali as knowledgeable about about the history of antisemitism (new or old), and its social manifestations? He is a leftist political activist who knows nothing about the subject of this article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Good Lord, Malcolm, of course I've read the "History of the Concept" section. And followed up with the actual references, which should be your next step. Taguieff is indeed an academic; however, his book La Nouvelle Judéophobie was published by a popular press in France, and with a grant from the American Jewish Committee was translated and published in America by another non-academic press under the sensationalist title Rising From the Muck: The New Anti-Semitism in Europe. This title seems at first rather surprising, since within its pages Taguieff gives detailed reasons for his rejection of the term "antisemitism" in favor of "judeophobia"; but if such a contradiction would be intolerable by the standards of a university imprint, as a commercial decision by a non-academic press it made great sense. This was 2004 – the year when popular sensationalist books and articles about "the new antisemitism" were all the rage, and this one was packaged to sell.

And things in the "History of the Concept" section go downhill pretty quickly from there. You have the ADL book, which is decidedly not a work of scholarship, followed by two brief scholarly dismissals of it. Then you've got a speech given by a historian in the private home of the Israeli prime minister; nuff said on that. Then all the quasi-self-published Chip Berlet stuff, which never in fact mentions the "new antisemitism." Berlet is a Wikipedian as well as a non-academic researcher, and somewhere in the archives of this talk page you'll find his rather strained explanation of why he avoids the term "new antisemitism" in his published writings but wants those published writings prominently featured in the Wikipedia article on the "new antisemitism," and believes his opinion of their relevance should suffice. Make of those lucubrations what you will.

The "History of the Concept" section does not demonstrate the concept's academic pedigree. But it's presented so as to seem to, as your take on it illustrates, and this is exactly the problem I've been talking about.--G-Dett (talk) 01:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. A further thing to note about the "History of the Concept" section is that it spuriously conflates a historical timeline with a timeline of conceptual development, so as to give the impression of a scholarly pedigree stretching back decades. The "1960s" section comes entirely from a book written in 2002, while the "1970s" section comes from a book written in 1973 and never cited or acknowledged by any writer on contemporary "new antisemitism," and then with the "1980s" section we're entirely in the hands of a Wikipedian who wrote back in 1990 about what he didn't call then – and doesn't call now, except on Wikipedia – the "new antisemitism." The Wiki-policy violation here is WP:SYN, but what I'm getting at is a more basic violation of the norms of any source-based research, to wit, a failure to distinguish between an incrementally evolving analytical approach on the one hand, and a rhetorical meme periodically reinvented (without attribution or analogy) by journalists and other popular or casual writers on the other. When the ADL's Abe Foxman put out another book on the "new antisemitism" in 2003, thirty years after the first, even he didn't cite or acknowledge his organization's previous "study"; in fact it presented the "new antisemitism" as if it were a brand-new concept Foxman was hatching as he put pen to paper. That is what's called a "tell." Scholarly concepts are always scrupulously historicized, contextualized, placed within an intellectual genealogy. The only source of ours who connects all the disparate writings about a "new antisemitism" at work in this or that time or place is Norman Finkelstein, whom I gather you haven't read. You keep citing him as evidence of the scholarly viability of the concept, but in fact his book aims to demolish the intellectual and historical integrity of the meme, by showing how it is endlessly recycled, always presented as an unprecedented and urgent crisis, with previous iterations of it obscured from view.--G-Dett (talk) 03:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The New Left Review is peer reviewed and well respected in the academy despite its politics. You can't say the same of trade paperbacks underwritten by lobbyist organizations. Again, can you cite a single peer reviewed study on the "new antisemitism" as an academic category? All of this is beside the point - I'm not the one arguing that we should compare Ali vs. Kulg's academic qualifications (or anyone else); my point is that this is not a concept with academic standing and thus we shouldn't be putting arbitrary qualifications on the article just to exclude those writers whom we don't like. This is a political football. csloat (talk) 02:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

csloat wrote: "my point is that this is not a concept with academic standing". Really? A quick Google Scholar search came up with these sources: [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] I don't have time right now to search for more refs, but these alone indicate that New Antisemitism has been, and continues to be, a subject of academic study. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Do they in fact indicate this, Malcolm? One by one:

1. Your first link is to a paper published in a scholarly journal put out by a prestigious press, but the author (Brian Klug) is explicitly undermining NAS as a "confused concept." Look at the abstract: "Some commentators today speak of a 'new anti-Semitism'. They claim, first, that there is a new wave or outbreak of hostility towards Jews that began with the start of the second Palestinian intifada in September 2000 and is continuing at the present time. Second, and more fundamentally, the 'new anti-Semitism' is said to involve a new form or type of hostility towards Jews: hostility towards Israel. This is the claim under discussion in Klug's paper. The claim implies an equivalence between (a) the individual Jew in the old or classical version of antisemitism and (b) the state of Israel in the new or modern variety. Klug argues that this concept is confused and that the use to which it is put gives a distorted picture of the facts. He begins by recalling classical antisemitism, the kind that led to the persecution of European Jewry to which Herzl's Zionism was a reaction. On this basis, he briefly reformulates the question of whether and when hostility towards Israel is antisemitic. He then discusses the so-called new form of antisemitism, especially the equation of anti-Zionism with antisemitism."
2. Your second link is to an archived version of an unpublished essay someone posted on his personal website.
3. Your third link is to an essay published in a collection put out by a non-academic press. It has four footnotes, three of them to newspapers.
4. Your fourth link appears to be dead. Or do you need some sort of special login?
5. Your fifth and final link is to an article in the same journal as your first link. It's difficult to tell from the abstract whether the author rejects "new antisemitism" like Klug, but it does appear that he refers to the term, shall we say, cautiously, with latex gloves and scare quotes, as it were; and the language of the abstract indicates that he sees the phrase as a journalistic meme, exactly as I've been saying. "Silverstein's essay explores the social drama surrounding the reported rise of a 'new antisemitism' in France in the context of a history of violence and present discrimination against French Muslims. Eschewing the essentializing approaches to Muslim antisemitism characteristic of many critics and pundits, the essay shows how current categories of ethnicity and religion in France (e.g. Jewish, Muslim, Arab and Berber) developed historically through colonial conquest, anti-colonial struggle and postcolonial racist violence."

With respect, Malcolm, evaluating "new antisemitism"'s place in contemporary scholarship requires more than typing something into the search bar of Google Scholar. "Britney Spears" gets 3990 hits on Google Scholar, to "new antisemitism"'s 166.--G-Dett (talk) 14:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett, I said it was just a quick search. I do think it makes clear that the subject has gotten scholarly attention. As for those articles that are critical of New Antisemitism, that is still scholarly attention, and I have no interest in pushing a POV in theis article. I would like a good quality article, and am not interested in pushing any POV. The Tariq Ali sourced paragraph is a problem, not because he is critical of New Antimitism, but because it is really nothing more than a rant attacking Zionism and Israel; and because of the obviously defective logic that it is okay to attack Israel and Zionists because they are wealthy and powerful (to whatever extent that is even true). Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Huh? The quote says nothing of the sort. "Getting scholarly attention" does not mean it is a scholarly topic. Again, please cite the peer reviewed studies that treat this as a measurable (or at least as an identifiable) scholarly phenomenon? csloat (talk) 17:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what point you are trying to make. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

That may be part of the problem. csloat (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I just got around to taking a look at the actual source for the Tariq Ali paragraph [19]. Scholarly? What a laugh! He makes one ridicusly incorrect, false, statement after another without any supporting documentation and without a single source cited. It is a work of fiction, filled with fanciful statements like, "Israel was created in 1948 by the British Empire..." and "Anti-semites and Zionists shared one thing in common: the view that Jews were a special race". And it was published in CounterPunch. Impressive that. This is some of what the Wikipedia article says about CounterPunch:

Franklin Foer of The New Republic and political commentator Steven Plaut have written articles pointing out that CounterPunch is biased against Israel and the USA, charging it with publishing anti-American, anti-Israel and anti-Semitic views.

CounterPunch has also been criticised by socialist activists Tony Greenstein and Roland Rance of Jews Against Zionism, who say it is too favorable to writers who blur the distinction between Zionism and Judaism. CounterPunch has also been criticized for publishing articles by authors such as Alan Cabal and Daniel A. McGowan who elsewhere have defended the free speech of Holocaust deniers such as Ernest Zundel. According to the critics, these authors have also sought to legitimize the views of such Holocaust deniers.[20]

Look csloat, and G-Dett, you both are going to have to grow up and get used to the idea that the Tariq Ali paragraph is not going back into the article. I can't understand how that nonsense got into the article in the first place. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm, the whole point of our NPOV policy - have you read it? - is that views we do not like or do not agree with or do not respect can be included in Wikipedia. So your above comment is irrelevant. How much we think a view is evil or stupid is simply not relevant. What is relevant is that the point of view be notable and come from a reliable source. Ali is in fact a notable figure; the New Left Review is a respected journal that publishes serious scholarship, and whose articles are assigned in university courses and cited in other academic journals. Whether you agree or disagree with the editorial vision or the journals politics is ... again, not germaine, unless you are trying to prove that you reject our NPOV policy. Is that your point? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

What you are saying seems contrary to WP:Reliable sources [21]. It is true that Tariq Ali is notable as an English political activist, but he has no knowledge of antisemitism, or anything else that would qualify him to speak on this issue in a Wikipedia article. I could, at most, see a small mention of him someplace in the article, but not with his photograph and a paragraph placed just below Norman Finkelstein [22], as though he was a scholar who knows something about the subject.

This article is not a study of social attitudes toward Jews, or the negative stereotyping of Judaism. It is just an article about a rather controversial claim of a New Antisemitism, and sourcing in the article should be limited to authors who understand the issue. Tariq Ali certainly has an attitude, but not knowledge of the subject to justify his use as a source. Also, since there are already critical sources in the article, I do not see how NPOV is an issue.

The article by Tariq Ali [23] that is the source for the disputed paragraph was not published in the New Left Review, but in CounterPunch and il manifesto. If you read that article, you will see it contains many claims, but no documention and not a single source is cited. I do not see how you can justify using that as the source for a paragraph in this article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, RS is a better basis for discussing the inclusion of this passage, than your own dislike of Ali or his views. So I appreciate your most recent comment and the shift in your explanation for your views. That said, he is a "public intellectual" who has a long history of criticism of Israel. Since this article identifies New anti-Semitism with a critique of a certain kind of criticism of Israel or Zionism, it seems to me that his views are noteworthy enough for inclusion. He writes in venues that are reliable for public discussion of controversial politics, which seems quite relevant to this article. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, I understand that you are a highly respected administrator on Wikipedia. I also understand that this conversation has been so long that no one would willingly read it all. Nevertheless, I am amazed that you think my opposition to the disputed paragraph, sourced to Tariq Ali, was ever based on personal dislike. That is incorrect. Could show me an edit where I said that my opposition was based on my emotional reactions? My criticism has always been based, instead, on my view that he is an unqualified source for the subject of this article. If it had really been my intention to remove serious criticism of New Antisemitism (a concept that I do not fully support), I would have removed the material from Norman Finkelstein who's criticism of the subject is certainly more damaging than Tariq Ali's. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm, your comment confuses me. First of all, I thought it was clear that my earlier view that you supported your claim to exclude the text because you thought Tariq Ali wrong was based on your 18:41, 21 August 2008 comment. If that was not clear, let me make it clear: I was responding to that comment. Second of all, I am now complimenting you on introducing RS as an issue which is a shift away from your 18:41, 21 August 2008 comment. So again, it is clear that I no longer think your opposition is based on personal dislike. get it? I no longer think this. I explicitly appreciate your changing to RS as an issue. I still think you are wrong, but at least we are now dealing with policy and not just your view that the counterpunch essay is ridiculous and makes you laugh. So let's stick to RS. No one is claiming that Tariq Ali is an expert on Israeli history; but the Counter Punch essay is a reliable source on what Tariq Ali, a prominent public intellectual, thinks. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Slrubenstein, I am sure I am just as confused by your comments as you are by mine.
2. Reliable sources (RS) has been my objection from beginning to end -- although I prefer using English to wiki-speak terms like "RS". My very first comment was "As far as I can see he has no qualifications to be used as a source for on New Antisemitism in this article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)".
3. Let me make my complaint clear: You're 20:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC) edit claims that my objection to the Tariq Ali sourced paragraph was (previously) based on my emotional reactions. You wrote: "Well, RS is a better basis for discussing the inclusion of this passage, than your own dislike of Ali or his views." That is incorrect, and I really do not appreciate having my motivations incorrectly characterized.
4. Have you actually read the Tariq article [24] that you say is okay as a source for the article? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

RS is not about the person quoted but about where he was published. See WP:RS for details. And as we have established ad nauseam, Ali is as qualified as anyone quoted here to comment on this; his comments are notable, and they are published in a RS. Are we done here? csloat (talk) 15:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

csloat, you are quite mistaken about WP:RS. It says, in the second paragraph: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand."

You will notice, please, that this sentence says that an author used as a source must be reliable in relation to the subject at hand. The subject at hand is antisemitism, and Tariq Ali knows nothing about it. Of course, it is also true that CounterPunch, in which the article was published, is not a reliable source....particularly since it has a accumulated criticism for "publishing anti-American, anti-Israel and anti-Semitic views" [25]. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

No; the subject is "new antisemitism," not "antisemitism," and Ali's opinion about it is notable (as we have established over and over and over and over again in this ridiculously long dialogue). And, of course, Counterpunch is a reliable source, whether or not some Wikipedia editor criticized it for being "anti-American." Get off it, Malcolm, the consensus is completely against you and you are beating a dead horse. csloat (talk) 16:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

New Antisemitism is just a subcategory of antisemitism, and logically, it is impossible for someone to be unreliable in the category, but reliable in the subcategory. Likewise it is impossible to be a heart specialist without being an M.D. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Calling "new antisemitism" a "subcategory of antisemitism" begs the very question that folks like Ali are bringing up. And I don't think anyone's going for heart surgery here so your other comment is not relevant. Again we have multiple arguments above that you have consistently and repeatedly ignored explaining why Ali's qualifications are appropriate for the comments here. csloat (talk) 17:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

If there is any fallacy in my logic I doubt that it is begging the question. However, if you could show me just where where I made that mistake in logic, I would be happy to benefit from you knowledge. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, no problem. It's in the paragraph where you said "New Antisemitism is just a subcategory of antisemitism, and logically, it is impossible for someone to be unreliable in the category, but reliable in the subcategory." The fallacy was begging the question, and I explained that in the paragraph that begins "Calling "new antisemitism" a "subcategory of antisemitism" begs the very question that folks like Ali are bringing up." Let me know if there is any other confusion you are having so we can clear that up and move on. Thanks. csloat (talk) 20:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I have been quoted above in an attempt to disparage CounterPunch. The summary in the article distorts my views, and appears to have been tendentiously edited since I last looked at the article. To make it clear, I consider an article in CounterPunch by Tariq Ali to be a reliable source for his views, and I consider Tariq Ali to be a relevant authority for this article. The whole notion of a "new antisemitism" is disputed, and many would argue that it has been developed in an attempt to delegitimise any criticism of Israel or Zionism. My (misquoted) article was an attempt to reassert a socialist and anti-Zionisr opposition to anti-Jewish racism, and to deplore the use of anti-Jewish motifs and rhetoric by some putative anti-Zionists. I may have failed in this -- in which case I wil, need to make another attempt, in a different forum -- but I will not allow my views to be twisted into the service of something they oppose. RolandR (talk) 21:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

RolandR, I excerpted the Wikipedia article, and gave a direct link to the section of the article it came from. I did not "distort" anything. I would appreciate it if you not make such accusations, because that is incivility: WP:CIVIL. If you have something to say, it is quite enough if you say it without disparaging the good faith of other editors. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry Malcolm, I did not intend to suggest that you had distorted anything. What I meant was that, since the article had been cited in the WP entry on CounterPunch, another editor had tendentiously edited that article. My complaint was abour what CounterPunch excluded, not about what it included. I fully accept that you made your own comment above in good faith, and I was trying to point out that you were relying on misinformation. RolandR (talk) 22:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Ali consensus

The consensus appears to be to restore Ali's comments to the page. There is only one person objecting, and he is doing so in an ad nauseam manner. Can we ask that an admin restore the comments to the page based on this consensus, or must we achieve unanimity? I don't think we will be able to convince Malcolm at this point, but I don't think it's appropriate for a single user to retain a veto over the page in the face of overwhelming consensus. I'm not sure that continuing the back-and-forth will be that valuable at this point, however, all due respect to Malcolm. csloat (talk) 17:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I see no consensus. I have previously asked if you were willing to compromise on this dispute, and did not even receive a reply. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

No consensus at all.--UbUb (talk) 18:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

No consensus at all.--UbUb (talk) 18:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's a compromise: on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Sundays Ali's views would be represented in the article. On Mondays Wednesdays and Fridays they wouldn't. On the Sabbath there would be cryptic and ominous allusions to him.

Another possibility would be to have a automated bot installed that would edit-war so we don't have to, adding and removing Ali from the article every thirty seconds. Every ninety seconds the bot would be blocked for edit-warring and a sock-bot would replace it, and every 270 seconds a automated CU-request would be generated to investigate the sockbot. We could then all meet on the AN/I board and fight.

Monty Python used to have a record with dual parallel grooves with different audio tracks; it was a crapshoot which groove the needle would drop into when you played it. One of the tracks began with Michael Palin screaming "Not THIS record! NOT THIS RECORD!! NOT THIS RECORD!!! AGGGGGHHHHH!" followed by the sound of the stylus screeching off the vinyl.

Can someone please summarize briefly for me why of all the great motley of good and bad sources for this article, we are discussing Ali? Are we moving to radically restrict the sources to those with no soapboxing tendencies, along with indisputable scholarly credentials to speak about this non-scholarly, very soap-and-lathery subject? Gonna be, ahem, pretty short when we're done with it. Or are we just randomly voting whether to throw someone overboard, reality-TV style before the next commercial break?--G-Dett (talk) 19:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I have explained the problem with Tariq Ali time and again. If you have forgotten, you could just re-read the discussion above. Your defense of Tariq Ali, that there is other crap in the article too, is a pathetic defense. Even if that is true, I do not mind taking out everything that is below standard, even if it reduces the article to a stub. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

My "defense" is not OTHER CRAP EXISTS. I just want to understand what the implied source standards are here. Most commentators on NAS are non-academic; the few that are academic are, like Ali, very partisan and quite soapy. If you want staid, sober, rigorous scholarship, you should turn your attentions to a page on a concept arising out of staid, sober, rigorous scholarship.--G-Dett (talk) 19:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It is clear that we are not in agreement. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know we don't agree, but I am asking a straightforward question: what is your sourcing standard, why should such a standard apply to this subject, and who meets it and who doesn't?--G-Dett (talk) 20:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I answered that question a number of times in the section above. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you did, Malcolm. It's just that I feel you and I should be able to come to some agreement here; like me, you are fairly agnostic about the whole thing and you don't appear to be choosing your "good" sources solely by where they fall on the central line of disagreement. So I'm trying to narrow down our differences, chase them into a brightly lit corner where we can examine them. As far as I can tell, our principal disagreement is that you think NAS is primarily a scholarly concept, while I do not.

In our exchanges over this, you pointed me to the "History of the Concept" section, and in addition you provided 5 links from Google Scholar. I examined both of these chunks of evidence pretty thoroughly, and I think pretty damagingly. You then reminded me that your evidence was merely the result of a "quick search." Have you had time since to do more research? Where are you now, as regards evidence for the scholarly heft of the "new antisemitism" concept?--G-Dett (talk) 20:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett, I do not understand your concern. What is wrong with using good quality sources? I have made it very clear that I would not oppose removing poor quality sources, no matter which side of the issue they are on.

Nevertheless, if you are interested in returning the Tariq Ali paragraph to the article, I offered this compromise to Slrubenstein in discussion on my user talk page [26]. To understand my thinking and intention it would be better to read the entire section. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

That's not a satisfactory response, but rather an evasion, and you should be able to understand my question, as it was very lucidly phrased and you appear to be literate. Here it is again: you pointed me to the "History of the Concept" section, and in addition you provided 5 links from Google Scholar. I examined both of these chunks of evidence pretty thoroughly, and I think pretty damagingly. You then reminded me that your evidence was merely the result of a "quick search." Have you had time since to do more research? Where are you now, as regards evidence for the scholarly heft of the "new antisemitism" concept?--G-Dett (talk) 21:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett, We are not discussing "evidence" we are discussing Tariq Ali as a reliable source for this particular article. As for answering questions, I have noticed that you have not answered mine either:

1. What is your objection to limiting sources to good quality sources, no matter how few they may be?
2. Are you will to accept the compromise? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Your definition of "good quality sources" here is academic sources. With respect, I've explained pretty patiently and thoroughly why one cannot assume that academic sources are always the best possible sources for a given article (much less to assume that they should be the only sources). The article on Hip hop should not lean primarily on scholarly sources, even though there is quite a sizable amount of scholarship considering hip-hop as the legitimate heir to the lyric tradition. The reason the article on Hip hop shouldn't lean primarily on what you're calling "good quality sources" (academic sources) is that these "good quality sources" (academic sources) have not been the most central, vigorous, and influential in shaping the place of hip hop in our culture. Rather, they've provided a minor (interesting, relevant, but minor) sort of side-commentary on what is largely a popular phenomenon. The article on New historicism, by contrast, should and does lean heavily on scholarly sources, because academic discourse is the primary natural habitat for discussion of that theoretical approach to literature. Our disagreement here is that I think the primary natural habitat for the discourse of "new antisemitism" is the popular media, and I've given a as-of-yet-unrebutted illustration of why I think that is the case. Whereas you think NAS's primary natural habitat is scholarly discourse. You've provided very little evidence for this position; what evidence you have provided has been thoroughly rebutted; and you're now resorting to evasions when prompted for more evidence.
2. Meaningful compromise takes place when a dispute has been narrowed down to its core irreconcilable difference. That hasn't happened yet. What you need to do is either (a) explain why you think even articles on pop-cultural phenomena should be sourced exclusively to what scholars say, or (b) explain (with cogent evidence) why you think "new antisemitism" is a not primarily a popular concept or discourse, but rather an academic one. --G-Dett (talk) 21:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett, I have explained many times my criteria for editing the article. More times than should be necessary. I think you may need to reconsider your position, which seems to be that your repeated demands that I give you explanations that you find satisfying, must be met, because your position is now approaching WP:OWN: "The editor may state or imply that changes must be reviewed by him/her before they can be added to the article. (This does not include egregious formatting errors.)"

If you think I am qualified to edit the article or not, if you think I have explained my criteria for editing or not, if you think I have explained my editing goals or not; you have no right to demand that information from me. I do represent to you in all honesty that I am editing in good faith and want the article to be as good as possible. I will continue my efforts to do that if you approve or not. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm, I've gone to considerable trouble articulating the problem here and narrowing down our point of disagreement. You should be thanking me for this, then reflecting on the issue and clarifying your own position. Instead you're huffing and puffing spuriously and inconsequentially about WP:OWN, all the while delivering ultimatums and drawing lines in the sand with other editors.--G-Dett (talk) 13:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett, I do not see why I should thank you for trying to assume control of the discussion, and (perhaps) of the article. As I said, I think what you are doing is approaching WP:OWN. In any case, your describing my edit (above) as "huffing and puffing" is not helpful, and not civil. Please simply say what you have to say on the subject without negative characterizations of me. Also, this talk page is to discuss possible changes for improving the article; and it is not for giving unrequested advice on how to improve the other editors, nor for explorations into other editor's intentions or goals. It is expected by Wikipedia to assume the good faith of other editors, and that should be quite enough.

As for my "drawing lines in the sand", I do not recall doing that. Could you show me some diffs? (If you are referring to the one edit in which my tone was admittedly deplorable, "you both are going to have to grow up and get used to the idea that the Tariq Ali paragraph is not going back into the article", I regret those words which were unnecessarily abrasive. Sorry.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It appears that all of the objections to the Ali material has been answered in spades at this point. The page has been unprotected; Malcolm, can I restore the material without fear of another edit war? Thanks. csloat (talk) 06:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

If you are willing, as I suggested, to return the "Political Directions" section to the article, as a compromise solution, the Tariq Ali paragraph will obviously be included. I oppose having the Tariq Ali paragraph in the section called "Arguments for and against the concept". Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

We can call the section that if it will help. But I'm not putting stuff in here that doesn't have to do with new antisemitism. csloat (talk) 20:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The whole section has to go back in, as it was, or not at all. Once that is done, changes must be discussed, beginning from that point. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. If there is something that was in there before that you liked, why not tell us what it was so we can discuss it? I don't see the point of adding things in that have nothing to do with "new antisemitism," which is of course the topic of this article. csloat (talk) 21:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Language

Emanate not escalated....

New antisemitism is the concept that a new form of antisemitism is on the rise in the 21st century, emanating simultaneously from the left, the right, and fundamentalist Islam, and tending to manifest itself as opposition to Zionism and the State of Israel.[1] The term has entered common usage to refer to what some writers describe as a wave of antisemitism that escalated, particularly in Western Europe, after the Second Intifada in 2000, the failure of the Oslo accords, and the September 11, 2001 attacks.[2]

no comma after and. Has Antisemitism escalated in Europe? unsubstantiated. that makes escalated incorrect. last bit should read "and after the 11 September, 2001 attacks." or move Oslo up one bringing second intifada down one. Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not see anything there that need to be changed. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It's called grammar....it is grammatically incorrect to have the comma before and.....the word after applies to 11 September attacks as it does to Second intifada....or do you subscribe to the theory that the 11 September attack was a failure?....Which in itself would be an interesting point of view, a minority view, but never the less interesting?....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 12:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be documentation that antisemitic attacks in Europe have increased, for instance: [27] [28] [29]. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

There is also documentation that says they have decreased and that it is the recording that has improved. In the UK anti-Semitic incidence were not recorded as separate from racist incidence, same in many European countries. Also is that New-antisemitism or old-antisemitism records or have you been unable to differentiate between the two?...

That still leaves the grammar, which is appalling....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 13:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

New antisemitism is a subcategory of antisemitism. It can't be one without being the other -- to the extent that new antisemitism exists, and it is not to job of Wikipedia editors to determine that. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

"New antisemitism" is not a subcategory of antisemitism, any more than "racism lite" is a subcategory of racism. NAS is a pop theory about antisemitism and the international political climate regarding Israel-Palestine.--G-Dett (talk) 13:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

So there is no such thing as new antisemitism then. If you can't differentiate it it is not a subcategory. The only thing New is the extra categories that some people have put down as anti-Semitism, such as wearing a Kefiah and any anti-Israeli rhetoric....Oh and it is for wiki editors to determine, it's called AfD....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 13:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't follow your logic. There is, of course, a distinction between antisemitism (the general topic) and new antisemitism (a particular form of the topic antisemitism). Something can not be new antisemitism without being part of the general category of antisemitism. Likewise, to draw an analogy, there is a Wikipedia article about Italy (a nation), and another article about Florence (a city located in Italy). Although Florence deserves its particular separate description because of its unique characteristics, there is nothing in Florence that is not part of Italy. Capisce? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

No, non capisco, perché quest'analogo é proprio assurdo. Florence is not a pop concept or meme like "new antisemitism." It's a freakin' recognized city in a recognized country. It is ridiculous to say that a disputed conceptual meme is a "subcategory" of a recognized phenomenon. There are plenty of things that are part of the supposed "new antisemitism" that are not part of antisemitism proper. This sort of conceptual and linguistic sloppiness is the very source of the ill-conceived suggestions and ultimatums you've been filling up the last three screen-yards with.--G-Dett (talk) 16:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It does not matter if you, or I, think the category of new antisemitism is real. You keep restating your POV. You are certainly entitled to your view, but not to argue about it here. The subject of the article is new antisemitism, which is certainly a subcategory of the general subject of antisemitism; and Wikipedia would like editors to write an article based on good sources -- not on personal belief. It does not matter if you, or any editor, thinks it is absurd. Editors who can not leave personal belief out of it should not be editing this article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not the "new antisemitism" meme that's absurd; NAS is a decent enough pop synthesis, if admittedly a tendentious one. It is rather your analogy that's absurd: everything in Florence is in Italy, so everything in "new antisemitism" is part of antisemitism proper? Good G-d, Malcolm. Think about it.--G-Dett (talk) 17:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett, it does not matter if you, or I, think it right. As a Wikipedia article, new antisemitism is a category of antisemitism. Saying the contrary will not change it. You are really arguing this where the argument does not belong. If you think new antisemitism is not notable, you should, as Ashley kennedy3 suggested, file an AfC and argue its notability there. The talk page of the article seems the wrong place to discuss that. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I have not said or suggested it isn't notable. Can I ask you to slow down and make sure you've understood the posts of other editors before responding?--G-Dett (talk) 17:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course it does. If any editor doesn't think it ir real they can ask for AfD.......it is not a sub-category...please get factual....leave out your POV and personal beliefs before editing please...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 17:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

And AfD would be a better option than pushing your POV on the talk page and in the article. I recommend you give it a try. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Look who is talking.--Einsteindonut (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett, you wrote, above, that:

It is ridiculous to say that a disputed conceptual meme is a "subcategory" of a recognized phenomenon. There are plenty of things that are part of the supposed "new antisemitism" that are not part of antisemitism proper. This sort of conceptual and linguistic sloppiness is the very source of the you say i "".

This sort of thing does not belong on the talk page. Time and again you have denigrated the subject of new antisemitism. Even if you are right, this talk page is not for discussing your POV. I would also like you to stop your accusations and insults directed at me. That is incivil, WP:CIVILITY, and fails to assume good faith WP:GOODFAITH which is require of WP editors. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Drop the querulous nonsense, Malcolm. I haven't denigrated the subject of NAS, I haven't questioned your good faith, I haven't accused you of WP:OWNership or any of the other things you've accused me of. I've simply posed tough analytical questions to you that you can't answer; hence all this flailing.--G-Dett (talk) 18:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett, above you wrote about me: "This sort of conceptual and linguistic sloppiness is the very source of the ill-conceived suggestions and ultimatums you've been filling up the last three screen-yards with." That comment is incivil, and you attitude toward my intellectual and linguistic abilities does not belong on this talk page. As for the "ill-conceived suggestions and ultimatums" you say I filled up the talk page with, show me diffs of the "ultimatums" I have made. In any case it is you, and csloat who have filled most of the space with long edits. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I have complete faith in your abilities, Malcolm; otherwise I wouldn't have engaged you in any depth. I think some (not all) of your posts have been a little sloppily reasoned, and it's not a personal attack to say so. You've removed material without consensus, and when asked if you intend to edit-war over it, your response was ambiguous. And yet you're accusing me of OWNing the article, even though I haven't touched it or indicated any intention of touching it.

I still think you and I can reach an agreement. I admire the integrity of your approach, insofar as you're proposing to draw a bright line regarding expertise with anyone who falls on a certain side of it – no matter their ideological orientation – included in the article. I just think the bright line you're proposing might be a bit misguided, and I've said why (and it doesn't have to with some notion that NAS is wrong or ridiculous). At any rate I'm quite certain we can work together on this. I'll take a little break from this talk page, so we don't go on ruffling each others' feathers; we can resume in due course.--G-Dett (talk) 19:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett, the material I removed, the Tariq Ali paragraph, should have been deleted with the rest of the "Political Directions" section of the article. But what csloat did was delete everything from that section that supported one view, and saved the basic material for the other view (the Tariq Ali paragraph) by moving it to a part of the article in which it did not belong. Despite all the problems with the Tariq Ali paragraph, which I have explained at length, I would not have otherwise deleted it without agreement. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Stop making baseless accusations. I deleted material that had nothing to do with "new antisemitism." I will likely continue to do so. The Ali paragraph was quite on point so I left it in. I did not "move it to a part of the article in which it did not belong"; all I did was delete a subheading that did not make sense. Nobody has complained - not even you, who originally advocated deleting the stuff from that section - about a single other quote that I deleted, so I'm not sure why you keep bringing that up. csloat (talk) 20:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

In an article as disputed as this you can not decide alone what belongs in the article, or any section of it. You need to cooperate with the other editors. If you continue make POV edits, and continue to edit without agreement, I will feel justified in reverting POV edits. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I am following consensus Malcolm. You are the one not cooperating with other editors. csloat (talk) 21:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

On this, actually, there is. csloat (talk) 21:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Umm, consensus is when people agree. Obviously here they do not. Please make more truthful statements. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is not unanimity. Please be civil rather than calling your collaborators liars; thanks! csloat (talk) 03:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

the image, again

Well, Malcolm, I see the first thing you do when the page is unprotected is not to restore Ali, as the consensus clearly suggests we ought to do, but rather to restore the extremely tendentious original research image that a mediation has already focused on. There is clearly consensus to restore Ali; there is clearly NO consensus to restore the image (and, after the mediation, presumption is resoundingly against it, even though the mediation was unfortunately limited primarily to the lede, though many of the arguments made during the mediation suggest it shouldn't be elsewhere either). Please do not restore the image to the article until you find evidence of a new consensus for putting it in. Thanks! csloat (talk) 21:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I said three days ago I intended to restore the image, and there was no objection. [30]. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I see you are just being disruptive here Malcolm. I thought you were trying to discuss things out on the talk page; are you just trying to get the page protected again instead? csloat (talk) 21:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - my last edit summary should have read "rv per consensus." Let's continue the discussion rather than the edit war, shall we? Thanks. csloat (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

There's clearly no consensus to remove the image. Please take your own advice, and continue the discussion rather than edit war. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

If there is no consensus to restore the image, don't restore the image. Thanks. csloat (talk) 21:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

If there is no consensus to remove the image, don't remove the image. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I think, given that the image had a pretty long tenure in this article, that it is up to the people who feel it ought to be removed to gain consensus for that idea before removing it. (And for the record, I think the image clearly belongs here.) IronDuke 02:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you're wrong. The image stayed in the article for so long only because those who wanted it in were more aggressive about edit warring during the ongoing discussion and controversy about it. It has been disputed for months; its connection to the article is one of the most obvious cases of original research I've seen on Wikipedia, and an often bitter mediation led to very persuasive substantive arguments against it regardless of the limited scope of the mediation. The presumption is clearly against putting it back in. In any case, the burden of proof is always on those who wish to include information rather than those who wish not to include it. Finally, it is resoundlingly clear that there is no consensus at this point to put the image in the article, so please do not do so. Thanks! csloat (talk) 03:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you're wrong. The image stayed in the article because there was consensus for it staying. As you have just pointed out above, Consensus is not unanimity. Its removal from the article is one of the most obvious cases of application of non-existent policies I've seen on Wikipedia, and an often bitter mediation led to very persuasive substantive arguments for it regardless of the limited scope of the mediation. The presumption is clearly against removing. In any case, the burden of proof is always on those who wish to change a longstanding consensus, rather than those who agree with the longstanding consensus. Finally, it is resoundingly clear that there is no consensus at this point to remove the image in the article, so please do not do so. Thanks! Jayjg ^(talk) 03:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh, missed this one. It's a cute technique, using your interlocutor's words against him/her, Jay, but it helps to only do it when you are actually explaining things accurately. Unfortunately, you are dead wrong on this one (and I suspect you're well aware of that). csloat (talk) 04:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you are dead wrong on this one (and I suspect you're well aware of that). Jayjg ^(talk) 04:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

What you say flies in the face of both logic and the facts. csloat (talk) 07:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Only if you define logic as illogic, and "the facts" as falsehoods. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I will add that those who are restoring the image at this point despite the obvious ongoing conflicts over it and the extended mediation about it are clearly being disruptive in a way that violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the mediation. An administrator may need to take a look at this. csloat (talk) 03:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

And I will add that those who are removing the image at this point, despite the obvious ongoing conflicts over it and clear explanation from the mediator that the mediation only covered moving it from the lede, are clearly being disruptive in a way that violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the mediation. An administrator may need to take a look at this. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Cute, Jay, but it's pretty obvious which of us is correct here. csloat (talk) 04:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and that would be me. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrong; guess again. csloat (talk) 07:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, right. I got it on the first guess. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to keep playing this game -- you don't appear to be taking this seriously at all, which is very much at odds with your comments below about discussing the article and not the other editors. I've got an olive branch here if you're willing to discuss these issues rationally, but I'm pretty tired of this back and forth. csloat (talk) 23:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you're planning to finally stop playing games and are going to attempt to discuss these issues rationally. A first step would be to stop pronouncing your opinions as if they were facts. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a few of us could get together and devise a series of workshops in what we do best. Csloat could teach Choosing Your Battles and Getting to Yes. I could teach Patience, Diplomacy, and Civility. Nishidani could teach Economy of Expression. And you, Jay, could teach How to Stop Playing Games, Discuss Issues Rationally, and Avoid Pronouncing Opinions as Facts. Your first lesson could offer an overview of techniques you find useful to this end, such as I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I, mimicking other editors extensively instead of responding to their concerns, and providing links to policy instead of demonstrating that someone or something violates it. A teach-in!--G-Dett (talk) 02:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I think perhaps it's best if this thread were to close, no? IronDuke 03:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Surprise

Wow, what a surprise. What a big effing surprise. Shell Kinney protects the page after an edit by Jayjg.--G-Dett (talk) 06:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Were you equally surprised the last two times the article was protected for a week, on the non-consensus version that removed the image? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Which means this version of the page will stay up for a while, and Jayjg will again cite this fact as evidence that presumption lies with keeping the contentious image in, as he did above. It's interesting how things work around here. csloat (talk) 07:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss article content, not other editors. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett and csloat, blaming all the editing problems of this article on other editors, which is what you both do above, is the inverse of what is needed to build a consensus. Blaming the situation on other editors is also incivil. Please discuss the article, not the other editors. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not uncivil to notice basic facts about another editor's comments or actions. If you find anything either of us said to be false, why don't you share what that is. csloat (talk) 12:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussing what you think is wrong with the other editors, instead of discussing the article, certainly is incivility. Please stop doing that. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what you are doing Malcolm. Please stop doing that. csloat (talk) 14:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

csloat, above, you wrote, "Jayjg will again cite this fact as evidence that presumption lies with keeping the contentious image in, as he did above. It's interesting how things work around here." That is incivility. You are blaming this articles problems on other editors, instead of discussing the article. Please stop doing that. This page is for discussing improving the article, not for discussing other editors. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I am simply pointing out what Jay did above, as he has done before -- cited the fact that the article was in a certain condition as evidence that it should stay that way. It is a fact, not an opinion that he did that, and it is part of his argument for keeping the contentious and miserable picture in the article in spite of the fact that many people are against it there and many strong arguments were raised during mediation. So on that issue it is quite impossible for me to discuss the article without also discussing the other editor, since his actions are tied to his alleged argument about the article. Now, let's get back to the issue of hypocrisy -- you have yet to return to discussing the article, and you continue to make comments about my behavior in this section rather than addressing the issues in the article. Hypocrisy is unbecoming. So, let's practice what we preach and put this silly debate behind us so we can discuss the article, shall we? csloat (talk) 19:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The image has been in the article pretty much continuously since early March 2006. That's a significant period of time and consensus. That, however, does not give you license to continually violate WP:CIVIL and WP:TALK. Discuss the article, not other editors. If you find it impossible, then edit other articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the period that the image has been in the article it has been bitterly contested, as you are well aware, so there is absolutely no evidence of consensus. As I said earlier, the only reason it has remained so long is because of edit warring and protection of the article -- you guys have been far more aggressive about edit warring than those of us who feel the image is destructive. As for WP:CIVIL and WP:TALK, I haven't violated either. I have been trying to discuss the article and the image but the problem is that you are making up a phony consensus to support your arguments, and when I call you on it, I get accused of being uncivil. So yes, Jay, let's discuss the article and not the editors -- quit making false charges of incivility and discuss the arguments -- do you have any evidence of a "consensus" to keep the article other than your argument that "it's been that way since March," an argument that I've refuted several times now? Please answer the question rather than calling me uncivil again. Thanks! csloat (talk) 23:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Please don't make personal comments about "you guys" etc., it's not conducive to collaborative editing. Thanks! Jayjg ^(talk) 00:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Is User:Shell Kinney aware of ArbCom restrictions? Is he an uninvolved admin? --Relata refero (disp.) 20:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

In what specific way are the former relevant? The answer to the latter is yes. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

To answer your questions in turn, the former is a subset of the latter, and OK. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with the sentiment that personalities are not relevant here. IMO, there are good arguments on both sides, and this issue can be argued solely on its own merits. IronDuke 22:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't heard the good arguments on the side of keeping the image in, but I remain open to them. The argument that "it's been that way since March" is not a good argument, IMHO. We have seen it hotly contested and those advocating keeping it in must meet a burden of proof they have not even bothered to try meeting. Consensus is not set in stone, and even if there was consensus in March about this image -- which I would dispute -- there is no evidence that there is consensus now, and actually quite a bit of evidence to the contrary (a hotly disputed argument in mediation for example). I still think WP:NOR rules trump whatever sensationalistic value the image has, and I'm not sure sensationalism is entirely appropriate in an encyclopedia anyway.

As far as whether personalities are relevant, they shouldn't be. Despite Jay's constant ridicule, I am willing to listen to what he has to say (as well as what anyone else has to say). As for Shell Kiney, I don't know the person, but if he or she has a pattern of protecting articles right after Jay has made the last edit in an edit war, another admin might need to look into it (or, perhaps, Shell could avoid doing that in order to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, even if it is all an innocent coincidence). There are plenty of other admins who could protect this article if edit warring starts up again. csloat (talk) 23:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Oddly enough, you never speculated on the motivations of Rlevse or Wizardman when they protected the article on the version without the picture, nor did you insist that they "avoid doing that in order to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, even if it is all an innocent coincidence". The contrast is somewhat amusing. Please avoid making highly selective bad faith comments in the future. Thanks! Jayjg ^(talk) 00:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Folks, um, I rather regret the comment of mine that initiated this thread. I would remove it except that then there's this whole thread; so I've struck it.

There was indeed edit-warring and Shell Kinney was right to protect. We all know about wrong versions and sour grapes.

Shell does not as far as I know have any history of protecting Jay's tendentious edits. I was mildly irritated with Shell during his mediation on the Jewish lobby article, because I thought he or she was overly passive and indulgent regarding disruptive wikilawyering, which is why I stopped participating in that mediation. But Jewish lobby is indeed a thorny concept (because the term is sometimes used legitimately and sometimes as a vehicle for rank antisemitism, and unfortunately there aren't many sources describing this ambiguity). Shell's posts are always cogent in their own terms, and I regret having suggested there was something untoward in his or her intervention here. Sorry, everybody.--G-Dett (talk) 01:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, G-Dett. Csloat, as for arguments, I reposted one below. Enjoy. IronDuke 02:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, G-Dett. I must say I did initially think that was the implication; I am rarely at I-P articles, so it was possible I was unaware of some history, which is why I posted my questions. --Relata refero (disp.)

• Uhm, ouch? I apologize if I caught everyone off guard, but having seen well, another revert war, right out of protection and noticing that the discussion here was mostly along the lines of "did too" - "did not" I thought protection would be preferable to blocking the two main participants. I believe this article was the focus of an RfM and I tend to put those on my watchlist; I don't know that I've ever protected an article Jayjg was involved in before so I don't think that I have any particular bias here. (Full disclosure: I have requested protection on an article Jayjg was involved with during a mediation) It looks like there's a really good discussion going on a couple of threads down about the best place and caption for the image - perhaps someone can propose a solution that would be acceptable to all? Anyways, I hope everyone will participate in that, but if you feel that the protection was incorrect for some reason, feel free to just drop a note on my talk page. Shell ^babelfish 09:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh my

I have probably 6000 edits in the various wikis, and I am contributing to some other wiki (mainly it and fr), and this is the first discussion I followed on judaism in en:. I had harsh discussions elsewhere, four-letter words were close to be used. But honest, I never witnessed such a talk between deaf people like this time. Not to me to give suggestions or blame to anybody, but well, IMHO a more relaxed and cooperative attitude would be beneficial for the article, for wiki and for the liver of the contributors. Sorry for the intrusion. --UbUb (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed! csloat (talk) 14:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I avoid this talk page, and I love to argue. But this particular venue is indeed bad for the liver. 14:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)Boodlesthecat ^Meow?

Back to the actual Zombietime issue

I posted this earlier this year, and I still think it neatly encapsulates why this is a good image for the article.

[Wh]y 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)

To see where those who are merely jealous of my mighty intellect quibble with this devastating analysis, see here. IronDuke 02:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that's the strongest argument for keeping the photograph. The connection between the photo and the article is original research, no matter how well you think it may fit. As G-Dett explained on the page you link, many months ago, we are not talking about a concept with a single objective and agreed upon referent (e.g. a Monarch butterfly, to use the same example). We are talking about a subjective description of general trends (e.g. a claim that there had been a sudden outbreak of killer Monarch butterflies slaughtering children in Halal butchershops, for example). You are not just offering a picture (or drawing) of a Monarch butterfly. You are offering a drawing of hordes of monarch butterflies attacking children in butchershops. csloat (talk) 02:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be suggesting that subjective descriptions of general trends cannot be illustrated. Is that the case? IronDuke 02:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. I only mean to suggest that this particular subjective representation of this particular general theory (not really "trend," since even the existence of such a trend is heavily disputed in reliable sources) is unhelpful, and even destructive to the goals of an encyclopedia. csloat (talk) 02:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, but that's just what I'm getting at with the post above -- this specific picture. It's fair, then, to say that you could accept a picture for this article, just not this particular one? And if so, can you say why my argument above is uncompelling, specifically speaking? IronDuke 03:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I did explain why your argument was not persuasive. See my comments above, the Monarch butterflies and such. And the original research. The New Statesman picture is an example of a much more useful picture in this article as it is a representation of something specific that is actually and identifiably talked about in reliable sources as an example (or not) of "new antisemitism." csloat (talk) 03:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You did not explain it. You talked about butterflies, which was lovely, but not really an argument as such. IronDuke 00:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The butterflies were an analogy. The butterfly is a specific and definitive object that can be illustrated in a manner that is not disputable. "New antisemitism" is not. If you are having trouble understanding this, you might try re-reading the comments I made, and then go back to the old discussion that you linked and re-read G-Dett's original use of the butterfly analogy, which was likely much more clear than my own. csloat (talk) 00:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

However, the image in question illustrates all the themes described in the article, as outlined by IronDuke. Just as an image of some graffiti scrawled on a gravestone can illustrate anti-Arabism. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It appears you misunderstand my point; I'd encourage you to re-read the comments I made and perhaps the older discussion linked above. Would you agree that a swastika scrawled on a gravestone would illustrate "antisemitism"? In your analogy, "anti-Arabism," like "antisemitism," is like the monarch butterfly -- a definitive referent. "New antisemitism," on the other hand, is a controversial thesis about general trends. What's more, it is a heavily disputed thesis, and this particular image is heavily disputed because it demonstrably degrades the discussion for various reasons (as has been spelled out for months if not years by those who have been protesting this image). It may "illustrate all the themes" that you believe are associated with so-called "new antisemitism" to you, but to many of us it does not. One theme in particular that it does not illustrate is the alleged insidiousness of "new antisemitism." To me this image simply illustrates "antisemitism" -- it is no more "new" to me than, say, graffiti scrawled on a gravestone. Hope this helps. csloat (talk) 03:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It appears you misunderstand my point; I'd encourage you to re-read the comments I made and perhaps the older discussion linked above. "New antisemitism" is a description of a specific kind of antisemitism, linked to very specific actions, just like "anti-Arabism" and "Islamophobia". The current image is only "disputed" in a rhetorical, political sense; for example, no-one really doubts that the picture was taken at the anti-globalization rally; that's just game-playing. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry Jay, your mockery might be more pointed if you actually responded to my comments rather than just repeating yourself; as it is it's just annoying. You're not even talking about anything I've said. This nonsense is not worth a response and I'm withdrawing from this conversation. Please don't address me again. Thanks. csloat (talk) 02:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Csloat, your comments might be more relevant if they actually responded to my comments, rather than just being repeated bald assertions of your incorrect opinions. As for addressing you, please don't try to impose special rules on this Talk: page; it's bad enough that you insist on them for this article and the Zombietime image. Thanks! Jayjg ^(talk) 22:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I got your point, csloat, it just didn't seem to match how carefully I'd shown how many different aspects of what is commonly meant by antisemitism were captured in the ZT image. Homophobia is not a term everyoneis comfortable with, or necessarily agrees there is such a thing as homophobia, as it is commonly understood. Here is a picture of a thing which perhaps does not exist (if doubters are to be believed) This may offend some, so I'm only linking to it. And Jay has pointed to other articles where pictures that pretty clearly denote what is being discussed are used. I'm not sure why NAS gets to be the article with much, much higher standards than these others. IronDuke 03:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

There are no higher standards here than the other articles; it is just that this is a qualitatively different kind of phenomenon than the others that Jay points to, as I just pointed out in my response to him. I don't believe you got my point if you are still making this argument. Let me refer again to the text of the article; paragraph two states that "The concept [NAS] generally posits that much of what purports to be criticism of Israel by various individuals and world bodies is in fact tantamount to demonization, and that together with an international resurgence of attacks on Jews and Jewish symbols and an increased acceptance of antisemitic beliefs in public discourse, such demonization represents an evolution in the appearance of antisemitic beliefs." You see, we're not just talking about "demonization" or "attacks on Jews and Jewish symbols" -- if we were, we would be talking about antisemitism. I think that image would be fine on that article. But on this article it is not enough to point to common themes -- this is a heavily disputed concept with no scholarly acceptance and no specific referent. According to this paragraph we need to see "an evolution in the appearance of antisemitic beliefs," which this image does not give us. It gives us plain old ordinary antisemitic beliefs.csloat (talk) 03:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Your assertion that "this is a qualitatively different kind of phenomenon" is false, and in any event doesn't over-ride current policy. There really will not be special rules and policies invented for this article, and this image. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Duke, your Homophobia example is a boomerang. Sources that "doubt" that bigotry against homosexuals exists are an extreme fringe; can you even name one? NAS's reception by contrast divides pretty evenly between pro and con, which is why the mainstream media, standard dictionaries and encyclopedias and so on, have never adopted the meme (unlike all the forms of bigotry you keep comparing it to). WP:NPOV discriminates between extreme fringe opinions and mainstream opposition, as I'm sure you know. Secondly, are you really saying that the relationship between a "God Hates Fags" placard and bigotry against homosexuals is no more self-evident than the relationship between the Zombie placard and "the concept that a new form of antisemitism is on the rise in the 21st century, emanating simultaneously from the left, the right, and fundamentalist Islam, and tending to manifest itself as opposition to Zionism and the State of Israel"? Not even just a little more self-evident?--G-Dett (talk) 13:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

@csloat -- If what you say is true, how then does the New Statesman image show "an evolution in the appearance of antisemitic beliefs?" @ G-Dett. Your gentleman friend is lovely, but I'm afraid he is made out of straw. I'm not talking about "bigotry." When it comes to homophobia, that's just begging the question. Or to put it another way, people who openly hate gays don't necessarily feel that "homophobia" (i.e. a fear of homosexuals) accurately describes their feelings. IronDuke 04:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The New Statesman image doesn't show such a thing, IMHO. But reliable sources believe that it does, and others disagree, and both publish their comments; based on what they say, those who think it illustrates NAS believe (if I am getting this right) that it criticizes Israeli policy in a way that is subtly antisemitic but not obviously so; it subtly encourages antisemitism while pretending (or imagining itself) to be simply a critique of Israeli policies. You can see where it's going; a Jewish star on top of a British flag with the insulting label "kosher conspiracy" on it; my assumption is that the article discusses the same sort of organized lobbying and political pressure by Israel in the UK that Mearsheimer and Walt were lambasted for studying on this side of the pond. In any case, I'm sure others who have actually read the New Statesman piece can offer a more nuanced perspective on what the image illustrates, but it certainly seems a lot closer to what is described in the article than the zombietime image. But in any case that is too detailed an answer for what you are asking -- the short answer is, it doesn't, and I don't argue that it does. But it has been talked about in RSs as either an example or not an example of NAS, and we can easily look at and quote the arguments on both sides without doing any original research to get from point A to point B. We also don't have to prejudge the legitimate debate over an abstract theory as if it were an obvious prima facie phenomenon or a given like, say, "antisemitism." csloat (talk) 05:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The etymology of "homophobia" is indeed "fear" of homosexuals (or more precisely, fear of same), but the word simply means bigotry against them. You are indeed talking about bigotry. Etymologies not being the same as definitions. Thanks for linking "made out of straw" to the article on strawman arguments; otherwise my dim bulb would never have lit upon the reference.--G-Dett (talk) 04:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, C’mon, G. You don’t seriously think I think you’re stupid, right? (I’m going to make my famous sad clown face if you do.) On to weightier issues. “[T]he word simply means bigotry against them.” <clears throat in semi-embarrassed fashion> Um, no. Where did you get that idea? Not from our actual article, I’m sure. Homophobia can mean hatred of gays, feelings of revulsions towards them, fear of them, and fear of becoming them (or secretly already being them). The picture we have in that article of the sign-wielding gentleman does not meet all of those criteria. Or at least, it wouldn’t according to his own opinion. So… that picture might go well in anti-homosexual attitudes, but it’s more than a stretch to call it “homophobia” – as has been pointed out by many who believe the term itself is nonsensical. IronDuke 23:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no article on anti-homosexual attitudes, because Homophobia is the accepted term for anti-homosexual attitudes in the usage of the overwhelming majority of reliable sources. All your song and dance and kabuki theater aside.

If the talk pages of Homophobia contain serious objections from editors disputing that "God Hates Fags" is homophobic please direct me to those discussions. If there are not, please consider why not, and base your future discussion on more meaningful analogies.--G-Dett (talk) 00:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, well. I was hoping you wouldn’t give up on this and actually make a substantive reply. <shrug>. Maybe it’s for the best. IronDuke 01:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Fun note: I read somewhere (I think it might have been P. J. O'Rourke, suggesting that etymologically speaking, “homophobia” really means having a fear of having the same fear over and over again. Which possibly makes me a homophobe.

@csloat: where has to been argued that the NS cover “shows an evolution in anti-Semitic beliefs?” And in any case, this takes us back to a point that’s been made more than once, which is that many images on WP are OR. It’s up to us to decide if they fit what they describe. I’ve shown how, according to our article, it meets many of the definitions – more than any other image I’ve seen on this topic. You got anything for me besides butterflies? IronDuke 23:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you even reading your own contributions to the discussion here before responding? You don't seem to be reading mine, and now I'm worried you're not even reading yours. I was responding to your question about the NS cover -- you were the one who asked "how then does the New Statesman image show "an evolution in the appearance of antisemitic beliefs?" Hopefully the direct quote will jar your memory. That's what I was responding to. My answer was that it probably doesn't. Then I explained why it is a more appropriate image anyway. It was a pretty careful explanation that might be worth your time to read. Then I returned to the main point at hand, the difference between "new antisemitism" and "antisemitism" and again reaffirmed the position that the zombietime image is an unproblematic example of the latter but not the former. I don't think I brought up butterflies at all. Meanwhile you're just repeating yourself -- "I’ve shown how, according to our article, it meets many of the definitions – more than any other image I’ve seen on this topic." You have shown no such thing. You have asserted that to be the case a couple of times now, but my arguments or analysis were an explicit response to that assertion. csloat (talk) 23:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

There was, with respect, no analysis to speak of. Only the butterflies. You set up a standard for why we should include an image, which you then say the image you’d like included doesn’t meet. I was trying to get some semblance of consistency from you, so that we could build on common principles. Wishful thinking, perhaps. IronDuke 01:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You are the only one speaking of butterflies at this point; I'm sorry you found that particular analogy difficult to understand, but I stopped using it a few posts ago. But you are incorrect that there was no analysis; I even repeated that analysis in response to your comments. I am also unclear on what you found inconsistent, but my guess is that it is also another misunderstanding. You are really just repeating yourself here and ignoring my arguments, IronDuke -- if you find yourself unable to refute them, it is possible that you may wish to rethink your own position on the issue in light of that. csloat (talk) 02:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess I keep going back to the butterflies because it seemed to be the only argument you had. Without it, there’s basically nothing, other than introducing the NS image as an alternative, which you indicate does not even meet your own standards – was that the argument you were referring to? Was there anything else? Because if there isn’t, then I have in fact refuted both of them (to the extent that a weak analogy is refutable), and you’ve offered nothing more than to reassert that you are right, and that I have not addressed your arguments. If I’m missing something, I’d like to know. If instead you want to respond by saying, “Well, IronDuke, clearly you’re an idiot and will never get this,” I guess we’re at an impasse. IronDuke 02:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is not your intelligence; it's just that you don't seem to be reading what I'm writing, and it's very frustrating to rewrite it just to have you ignore it again. I made the arguments above, you ignored them, and you keep going back to the butterflies (which you never actually responded to either, BTW), and then asserting that I haven't made any arguments. It's very insulting to read that after having made arguments. I never introduced standards that you claim I did so I'm not sure why you say the NS image doesn't meet them. I explained very carefully why the NS image was better than the zombietime one and you went back to butterflies. If you really are trying to understand me, re-read my comments above. You can just read the part that begins with "the short answer is" and discuss that to begin with. If that doesn't work for you, maybe you could look at the paragraph that begins with "There are no higher standards..." But in both cases it will require you to actually read what I'm saying and respond to it rather than mocking me, bringing up butterflies, or asserting that I am not making an argument -- I'm going to just try to ignore you if that's where you go with this discussion, as I plan to do with Jayjg's incessant, rude, shameful, and disruptive mockery. csloat (talk) 02:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss article content, not other editors. Thanks! Jayjg ^(talk) 02:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I’m not sure why you think I’m mocking you. Indeed, when you write things like I find an analogy “difficult to understand” and that I’m not even reading my own contributions, I think I’d be on the right side of reasonable to think you were insulting and mocking me. I don’t have time now, but I will review this thread – very carefully – and have a detailed reply to all the arguments you advanced in the not too distant future. IronDuke 03:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)<--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Okay, I went through and looked again at everything you wrote. Here's what I was able to tease out, by way of arguments. If I missed any, please let me know.

• "The connection between the photo and the article is original research, no matter how well you think it may fit."

Possibly, but I've already discussed this. Many photos (and all drawings) on WP are OR. We'd need a sea change in policy to use that as an argument against this image.

• "We are not talking about a concept with a single objective and agreed upon referent (e.g. a Monarch butterfly, to use the same example). We are talking about a subjective description of general trends (e.g. a claim that there had been a sudden outbreak of killer Monarch butterflies slaughtering children in Halal butchershops, for example)."

I asked you if it was possible to have a picture of a subjective description of general trends. At first you didn't know, then you offered up the New Statesman image. Leaving that image aside, you essentially annihilated your own argument (and this the butterfly analogy doesn't even need to be refuted, though it easily could be) - yes, we can have a picture, the question is merely which picture.

• You describe the Zombietime image as "destructive" and "unhelpful."

I can't really reply to this, as it's simply argument by assertion. I say it's constructive and helpful. And I offer evidence of why.

• You go back to the New Statesman image as being a "representation of something specific." But you already said that this concept is subjective and general. But all of a sudden, it's neatly encaspulable by this picture? Then you later say "The butterfly is a specific and definitive object that can be illustrated in a manner that is not disputable. "New antisemitism" is not." But you just got finished extolling the virtues of the NS picture, and now antisemitism cannot be illustrated in a manner that is not disputable? You go on to reply to Jayjg that "New antisemitism," on the other hand, is a controversial thesis about general trends." Why, I don't know, as you've already admitted the idea is illustratable, all we're arguing about is how to illustrate it. To that end, you submit that "this particular image is heavily disputed because it demonstrably degrades the discussion for various reasons." The reasons you give here are not compelling because, of course, you don't give any. "It may "illustrate all the themes" that you believe are associated with so-called "new antisemitism" to you, but to many of us it does not." No, it has nothing at all to do with my or Jay's or anyone's beliefs. You seem to be a fan of instructing people to reread stuff, reread my original post here. It isn't what I believe AS is, it's what the article itself says AS is.

• "One theme in particular that it does not illustrate is the alleged insidiousness of "new antisemitism."

How exactly would one illustrate "insidiousness?" And in any case, who cares? It still illustrates a whole bunch of other stuff (and I don't think I see "insidiousness" anywhere in the lead).

• "But on this article it is not enough to point to common themes -- this is a heavily disputed concept with no scholarly acceptance and no specific referent. According to this paragraph we need to see "an evolution in the appearance of antisemitic beliefs," which this image does not give us."

I'm not sure what you think you mean here. How is it that you think the "evolution" is going to be sketched or photographed? And we don't need to have an image that meets every single last point of what could plausibly be considered NAS. My God, if I went through WP and started deleting images because they didn't match every single thing the article covered, I'd be banned within an hour. But anyway, so I asked you, does the "New Statesman image show "an evolution in the appearance of antisemitic beliefs?"

• Surprise! It doesn't! Even though you've been arguing that should be our metric of inclusion. You pivot, with only a little bit of effort, over to the idea that because an RS says it's an image of AS, that makes it so. Not a bad argument, but you completely abandon your earlier position. And as to RS, we go back to the point I keep raising, which is that we do not need other Reliable sources confirm images for us when we can clearly see what they represent. Most images, I daresay, on WP, do not have an RS backing them up. You do say that your picture "certainly seems a lot closer to what is described in the article," but give no accounting of how that might be the case. Where I show issue after issue after issue that the ZT image fits, you show nothing. And on top of this, you criticize the ZT image for not illustrating every single point in the article, where the NS image illustrates very little that's in the article.

I think that about covers it. You hold the ZT image to a standard that the picture you want does not meet, than put forth another standard which your picture does meet. IronDuke 00:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep this simple: "new antisemitism" is not a specific object. It is a general theory that there is wide disagreement about. Like, for example, postmodernism. Lo and behold, there is no image on "postmodernism." I don't think we could find an image to definitively illustrate "postmodernism." The best we could do is find an image that reliable sources discuss (or disagree about) as a possible example of "postmodernism." That's the sole reason I said the New Statesman image was better. Not because it "better illustrates New Antisemitism" -- I never said that it did, and your assumption that I said that is unnerving. I think you're just not understanding me, which is why you keep telling me in condescending tones that I'm contradicting myself. So let me explain again - the NS image is better here not because it better represents NAS -- I don't think it does -- but because it shows an example of something that is debated in reliable sources as an example (or not) of NAS. Whereas the zombietime image does not. Wikipedia can and should be agnostic on the question of whether a particular image is an example of something that reliable sources dispute even exists. You are right about one thing, my comment that the zombie image is destructive and unhelpful was an assertion, but it wasn't meant to be more than that -- the reasons it is destructive and unhelpful have been laid out for months by other editors more capable than me, and it would be instructive for you to go back through those discussions if you want to revisit those arguments at this time. I'm not inclined to debate that particular point; if you find the sensationalism constructive that is fine -- we can agree to disagree there. csloat (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I got all that -- in fact deal with it in explicit detail. As for the destructive and unhelpful comments, as they remain unsupported, I’m going to basically assume they did not occur. Yes, people dispute that NAS exists. As has been noted (I think by G-Dett), people dispute that the Santa Claus exists. Doesn’t mean we can’t have an image (and indeed, the images we have in that article do not, like the ZT image, demonstrate every conceivable iteration of Santa Claus). Maybe I can help simplify this: is it okay, on Wikipedia, to use an image that has not been certified by an expert or experts as representing what it purports to represent? IronDuke 00:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

What baffles me is the way you discuss these questions in the abstract. Is it OK to use an image that has not been certified by experts as representing what it purports to represent? Yes, emphatically yes. But when fifty or so editors say it doesn't represent the thing in question, and there are no reliable sources saying it does, then you have a problem. The fact that other "uncertified" images exist and are OK does not mean any and every uncertified image will ipso facto be fine. Yet that's how you and Jay are arguing this. You talk endlessly about "double standards," but all your examples of double standards are premised on analogies that have been widely and rightly ignored or ridiculed as baloney. Meanwhile, can you tell me of another image whose validity and relevance has been challenged by fifty+ editors that's still in the encyclopedia? Whose advocates still claim "consensus"?--G-Dett (talk) 03:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

If you think you responded to that point, then you most emphatically did not "get all that." You mock me for butterflies and yet the sum of your response is Santa Claus? People may dispute his existence but nearly all agree that he wears red and has a beard and a sled with some reindeer -- quite easy to represent in an uncontroversial manner. That is not true of "new antisemitism". You should take a look at the example I gave, "postmodernism," rather than bringing up Santa Claus. And as G-Dett correctly points out above, your attempt to turn this into some kind of grand generalization that must apply in every instance is misguided at best. That's not what is being discussed here.

Finally, you can "assume" conversations did not occur even though you know well that they did (in fact you yourself linked to one of them to kick of this very discussion), but that really gets us nowhere, now does it? Or do you believe that ad nauseum is an appropriate discussion strategy for Wikipedia? csloat (talk) 08:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett, I am baffled by your bafflement. The question I asked got, I think a very useful answer from you: yes, it's fine, in principle, to use the ZT picture without a reliable source specifically stating that it refers to AS. So the only question that remains is, does this image actually illustrate NAS in a useful way? Earlier, I talked about the intro, and how many of the points in question it illustrated. I've never seen a refutation of that (or hell, maybe there was and I've just forgotten. Feel free to refresh me.). And by refutation, of course, I don't mean "No, IronDuke, you're wrong," I mean take the same time that I took to spell out exactly why it doesn't actually reflect what's in the article (and again, please don’t come back with, "But it doesn't cover every single aspect!")

"All your examples of double standards are premised on analogies that have been widely and rightly ignored or ridiculed as baloney." Sigh. I guess it's a good there's no more effective argument than ridicule, because that's a good chunk of the "analysis" that's been thrown my way.

As for an finding "image whose validity and relevance has been challenged by fifty+ editors that's still in the encyclopedia? Whose advocates still claim "consensus"?" Okay: check out this image If memory serves, there were many, many people who wanted the image deleted or only as a link and not on the actual article. Still there, per consensus. I also, by the way, challenge the notion that there are "50 people" who challenge the ZT image. Consensus can change, and part of that change does not involve counting "votes" from editors who are no longer interested in this discussion. What's relevant here is who thinks what about the image now. I know that's tiresome in that it obliges us to keep tabs on the articles we care about and keep coming back to them to fix them or keep them on the right track, but that's what's so gloriously irritating about Wikipedia.

Csloat, I'm not sure I understood your post. I'll reply to what I was able to tease out from it: 1) No, of course my reply didn't consist solely of Santa Claus. It was actually quite lengthy. I think that was a strange thing for you to say. I am truly sorry if you felt I was mocking you in re the butterflies. I thought it was merely gentle ribbing, but I'm sensitive to the fact that you perceived it differently. There was no malice intended. I'll just note parenthetically that you yourself seem entirely comfortable making comments I would interpret (charitably) as mockery, so I'm not sure why you'd take such exception to the comments of others.

I'm not attempting to turn anything into a "grand generalization." Again, this is a bizarre formulation, and I think you are completely missing the point. I'm trying to find out where we agree, so that I can proceed along that line and find the exact point of our disagreement, I think it's quite effective so far (even if it's been like pulling teeth along the way).

You think Postmodernism is an impossible concept to illustrate? There's already a picture there, and I added one more.

As for assuming a point wasn't made, it's because you haven't supported that point. I linked to a thread. You, on the other hand, suggested "the reasons it is destructive and unhelpful have been laid out for months by other editors more capable than me, and it would be instructive for you to go back through those discussions if you want to revisit those arguments at this time." Okay, if you think that's an appropriate response, I'll test you on that conviction: Csloat, the reasons that this picture is constructive and helpful have been laid out for months by other editors more capable than me, and it would be instructive for you to go back through those discussions if you want to revisit those arguments at this time. I'll be eager to see you recapitulate those arguments. IronDuke 23:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

There shouldn't be anything to "tease out" of my post; it's all right there. But it is clear that you don't understand; at least you acknowledge that. The bottom line is that "postmodernism" and "santa claus" are qualitatively different concepts in terms of ability to illustrate them with a photo. The fact that you violated WP:POINT by putting a photo on the postmodernism page does not change the fact that they are such different kinds of concepts; if you really don't see that and aren't just pretending to be ignorant for the purpose of feigned agonistics, I'm not really sure what more to say. But are you really suggesting that the picture you added -- the cover of a book from 1952 -- accurately and unproblematically illustrates "postmodernism"?? And that anyone looking at that picture would say "oh, that's postmodernism," the way they would say "oh, it's santa claus" if they saw a drawing of santa claus? And if you're not trying to turn anything into a grand generalization, then why do you insist that every objection to this photo be turned into some kind of standard or principle that must be defended as a general wikipedia rule regarding pictures? If you are prepared to drop that latter demand, then perhaps we are making progress in this discussion. As for your last paragraph, it's not worth a response - you appear to be just being rude (though I will take your word for it that you mean only a gentle ribbing, but next time when you rib, at least try to be amusing). csloat (talk) 17:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Duke, your opening sentence about what you "got" from my response to your question is horse manure. I won't go into why, trusting that you couldn't keep up this sidewalk pea-and-shell hustle without a basic level of literacy, but if it helps things along I'll point out where your sleight-of-hand began: So the only question that remains is... Ponder that for a while. I don't know if you're a morning person or an evening person, but do it whenever your brain's at its prime.

The image has been continually contested ever since it was forced into the article two years ago. Those opposing it were initially bullied with unwarranted assumptions of bad faith and totally fake accusations of antisemitism, until strategy switched and further opposition was countered with totally fake assertions of "consensus."

While we're considering "editors who are no longer interested in this discussion," let's not forget (a) the protracted mediation the complicated terms of which were dictated by SV and Jay, who then refused to participate, ensuring that it failed; and (b) the three-month-long article protection imposed on the article by Crum375, who presented himself as neutral and uninvolved.

Comparing those of us who oppose this image on explicitly articulated policy grounds to those religiously opposed to depictions of the prophet was very stupid on your part. Please pay everyone here the intellectual courtesy of not proposing any more bullshit analogies, with Monarch butterflies or Mohammed or homophobia or whatever. Focus your considerable mental energies on my compromise proposal below, which has been sitting there for days with no response from you.--G-Dett (talk) 00:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I wish you wouldn’t capitulate so easily, G-Dett. You’ve answered nothing of what I put forth, so I won’t go over it again.

Ordinarily, I like to refrain from any sort of commentary about the personal lives of editors, and I appreciate it when they extend me the same courtesy. In this case, due to the rising level of bile and insult in your posts, I wonder if there’s something going on in your real life right now that’s stressing you out. If so, you might want to consider taking a break for a few days.

As for the “bullshit” analogies, the butterfly one was csloat’s and yours, no? And the reference to the Danish cartoon was in response to your request for an image that was heavily disputed but remained. It has nothing to do with whether that image is as worthy of inclusion per se as this one. I am truly, truly confused as to why you’d lash out at me for finding a picture that met your challenge. I’d be tempted to say you’re annoyed that I found one so easily and so went off on that rather odd, insulting tangent, but my impression of you is as being a decent, thoughtful, very smart person, so I have to reject that. But it’s deeply troubling when you write something like “Comparing those of us who oppose this image on explicitly articulated policy grounds to those religiously opposed to depictions of the prophet was very stupid on your part.” I never did any such thing, and I think you have to know it, and you have to know that I know it as well. Who was that remark meant for? It’s just so strange.

Finally, can I ask you to stop attacking me in your posts? I know I’m setting myself up for, “Well, IronDuke, I’d like to, but they’re so idiotic, I’m just fed up with them.” I hope you won’t respond in that way, and actually take a moment to think about what collaborative editing should look like. Do you talk to the people you work with that way?

Point in your favor: I did not know you had put forth an alternative proposal, apologies. Sometimes it’s hard to see when new stuff is here, especially when one is pressed for time. I’ll look at it right now. IronDuke 15:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Civility and incivility mean different things to different people. The core of civility for me is taking seriously what editors who disagree with you have to say; that is, not intentionally distorting or "forgetting" it. It means engaging seriously and dispassionately. It is a lot less important to me whether people express themselves colorfully, show their irritation and so on. I will take bruising, even hectoring input from an honest and rigorous rival over polite pettifoggery, every single time. Shell games are rude in my book.

The butterfly analogy was Armon's. Sorry, I sometimes get you two confused; and you came in on his heels in that exchange to push the same line of argument.

I asked you if you knew of another image whose validity and relevance has been challenged by fifty+ editors that's still in the encyclopedia, and you told me about a sui generis case where editors objected to an image for religious reasons having nothing to do with Wikipedia policy. Of course the image was kept; Wikipedia simply doesn't have provisions for protecting religious sensibilities. This was not a good example of the sort of serious interpretive divisions (between editors who share a committment to policy) that have been elicited by the Zombietime photo. This was on the other hand a good example of your exasperating pettifoggery.--G-Dett (talk) 17:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I don’t know what you mean by shell game. What it looks like from my perspective is we have these wonderful little chats, I patiently parry all of your arguments, you eventually run out of ways to defend your position, and then you start attacking me. I don’t mind a bit of elbow-throwing, I guess, though it’s better when it’s accompanied by an actual argument. In your penultimate post, you advanced nothing at all in response to what I had written. It was nothing but invective, and badly done invective at that.

I shouldn’t have to explain this to someone with your IQ, but you asked me for an example of when a picture had been kept by 50+ editors, and I did. You think no one made reference to its validity? Or relevance? That was at the core of what a lot of the opposers were on about. Yes, some of the opposes were on religious grounds, many were not. Some likened it to the goat.se (sp?) image, saying it was simply too shocking and offensive for Wikipedia (and many of these were avowedly non-Muslim, and were therefore not based on religious grounds per se). It’s no good your asking me to hunt up an example and then, when I come up with one, moving the goal posts on me. And then you start complaining shrilly that I’m somehow comparing you to religious fundamentalists, when it’s patently obvious I’m not. What is that in aid of? And BTW, I could come up with more examples of images that were kept despite heavy opposition, but what would be the point? You’d simply reply, with devastating accuracy, “Yes, IronDuke, but the image you’re referring to is not exactly like this one, and therefore is a mortal insult to every editor on this page.”

Also, you’re not paying the kind of attention as you need to be throughout this discussion, and it’s getting exasperating. I wasn’t “pushing” the butterfly analogy, I was rejecting it, and strongly. Is it maybe kinda sort of hard to get all that from what I wrote and you might have to read it a couple times? No. It’s stunningly obvious. For the love of Mike., I actually refer to it as “your” butterfly analogy, because you were the one who extended it. I never “pushed” Armon’s analogy at all. I know it’s a pain to wade through all the discussion but, since you linked to it, maybe you’d feel a little less foolish if you read it before discussing it.

As for civility, I’m going to pull rank on you. A civility expert once said, “Civility is a multifaceted thing; it does not consist merely of maintaining a prose style ploddingly free of irony and badinage. It includes things like reading posts carefully, taking seriously the ideas of other editors, and fairly and thoroughly and candidly representing those ideas even as you scrutinize and critique them.” This you have not done. Haven’t even come close. And you know what: if you could at least manage a tepid defense of your own positon, I’d be happier about the incivility. But without it, you just look like another random IP spouting off.

Of all the people who push an aggressively pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel point of view, I think you’re far and away the smartest. That’s what makes this so painful. Come back with real arguments about what I said, not gassy fulminations against an imaginary opponent who posits ideas that exist nowhere but in your own mind. I miss the G-Dett who was interested in reasoning. IronDuke 22:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Can I give ID a point for this one? In the series of little chats, I admit it's legitimately one of the better, as I don't think G-Dett would mind my saying.

My objection to the picture is a little more basic: I think it clearly promotes one view, in the same way as would a picture of an "anti-occupation" protester looking harmless. The issue would similarly be NPOV, deriving from NOR, and I think this is why so many people have questioned this over time. More generally, if this aims to be a serious article on a contentious topic, I think original pictures of this nature, where Wikipedia decides they are relevant solely through its own editorial choice, are more of a detraction. That doesn't mean I'd oppose a compromise to include it, but I think it's one of the main issues. Mackan79 (talk) 07:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Mackan's a great ref and I'll accept his calls one way or the other.

ID and I discussed your point about NPOV in the exchange he alludes to above, the one with butterflies and slugs and Armon. Duke's position was that the image was merely "illustrating a controversial theory," that it would make no difference for example if he'd simply designed it himself. That the important thing about the image was not the circumstances of when and where it appeared but rather simply what it graphically illustrates in terms of the rhetorical tropes of NAS. My response was that the photo (as currently captioned) is used not only to graphically illustrate a theory but to provide evidence of it, and therein lies the NPOV problem as well as the RS problem: "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."

Jay's response (then and now) to what I call the "evidentiary issue" is that even if Zombie isn't an RS, "No-one seriously doubts that the sign in them image was held at that rally." I dunno. First of all, I'm not terribly impressed by "no-one-seriously-doubts" lines of argument when it comes to reliable sourcing, and I know in other circumstances neither would Jay be. But secondly and more importantly, I do seriously wonder what happened when the sign was hoisted, what kind of reception the sign-bearer received from his fellow protesters. The few times I've seen some crank unveil a "Zionazi" poster at an anti-war rally they were immediately shunned by the crowd and confronted by organizers. I think this is one of the reasons mainstream media outlets don't really get near these photos, and Zombietime has had so little success in getting them to take his photojournalism seriously. He has a sympathetic choir on Wikipedia though, which is why a photo that even the New Republic won't run except with latex-glove disclaimers on an affiliated blog is promoted on three or four Wikipedia pages.--G-Dett (talk) 14:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll just briefly submit that I agree with IronDuke that there are decent arguments for and against, and that I'm not adamantly opposed to use of the image somewhere in the article. The fact that it's an amateur activist's image with unsourced and debatable relevance to the concept is a problem, but I think with more careful placement and caption-writing than we've seen thus far the problem could conceivably be dealt with.--G-Dett (talk) 02:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I think its time to move on and leave this image where it is.

Telaviv1 (talk) 08:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I will soon be posting my suggestions about where the picture could conceivably go, and how it could be recaptioned. But first I think we really to dispel this notion that the Zombietime photo has a "tenured" place in this article and has enjoyed a "longstanding consensus." This is categorically false, as everyone who's read through the archives knows.

SlimVirgin's uploading and addition of the image was immediately controversial. Have a look at archive six from 2006, beginning with the section "Demo poster image" and continuing on down through numerous sections and running to many thousands of words. In each case, those raising policy issues with the image (ranging from original research to POV-pushing to copyright violations) are hectored, insulted, and intimidated; longstanding and very mild-mannered editors are referred to as "trolls," "vandals," "trouble-makers," and at several points it is insinuated that they are antisemitic. It gets incredibly ugly, and I'm afraid the ugliness is entirely on one side; if that sounds biased, read through it and see for yourself.

Nine months later, the controversy had not faded in the least. Have a look at archive 12, beginning with the subsection "Zombietime." Those raising policy objections this time around are not personally attacked, but their questions are dismissed peremptorily; and the strange notion begins to take hold that the fact that "we've been over that picture at length, many, many times" is somehow evidence of consensus, rather than the lack of it.

It's worth mentioning that at this point, March 2007, the article had been protected on SlimVirgin's preferred version by Crum375, who then offered his services as an impartial and uninvolved mediator. Crum's protection lasted three months.

At one point I went through the archives and counted the editors who had voiced objections to the Zombietime image; I've forgotten the exact figure but it was over 50.--G-Dett (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed summary of the consensus issue; hopefully this argument won't rear it's head again, at least not for another year or so.... As for whether the picture can go in the article in a modified way, I'd want to look at the modifications but I'm not sure I see any justification for having it in at all. The case made so far in support of the photo has been thin indeed. csloat (talk) 17:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me solve this for you

OK, here's the problem (no doubt this has already been said but Lord knows I'm not going to read through everything I've missed here in the discussion. Don't make me. It would be cruel).:

• Does the Zombietime image illustrate the concept of "new antisemitism?" Unequivocally yes, it's all there.
• Is this a reliable image to use as an illustration of "new antisemitism"? Unlikely; who knows what the circumstances are. Did Mr Zombie run into the rally with the sign while Mrs Zombie quickly snapped a picture, before anyone noticed and hustled them out of there? Was this a lone nut? A small group of nuts? Were they there the whole time? Did they get tossed out? Etc etc blabla bla.
• The solution (!) Leave the fakakta image in (further down) with a clear disclaimer indicating we have no idea what the circumstances of this pic were, but it is used to illustrate the motifs. Including mention of Z-time's less than partial allegiances. Distinguish it from the New Statesman, which is a bonafide example of reliable sources backing up that the cover is an example of NAS in action. Let's solve this in time for the apples and honey. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 14:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Boodles, there actually are reliable sources that indicate the "circumstances of the pic", so we don't really require all the disclaimers. See Moormeister, Robyn. "Holocaust survivor organizes UCSC conference on anti-semitism", Santa Cruz Sentinel, May 2, 2003. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Jay, you say "sources" but the local Santa Cruz paper is the only one, right? Incidentally, I don't think it's been noted here that the relevant passage of that piece is actually written in free indirect discourse:

Baumgarten said anti-Semitism is rearing its head again in the United States, too. In addition to the Elders of Zion protocol published in New Jersey, war protesters at a recent San Francisco peace rally were photographed displaying pictures of the devil with a dollar sign over his head standing over a globe, surrounded by the words "Zionist Pigs" and "Stop the War Pigs."

The Sentinel writer is not reporting from the San Francisco demonstration where the Zombie poster allegedly appeared; he's reporting what Murray Baumgarten, a pro-NAS activist, tells him in an interview for the "Local News" section of a sleepy surf town's very local paper, alongside "Local ‘gutterpunks’ get magazine’s nod" and "Weekend will start off wet." We're in a kind of echo chamber here.--G-Dett (talk) 14:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The image itself lists 6 sources, including the Sentinel, and these sources are more than good enough for establishing the provenance of the photograph. We don't insist on this kind of sourcing for other similar images; as has been pointed out above, the "Islamist" and "Anti-Arab" photos have absolutely no sources supporting their provenance, as is the case for 99.999% of images on Wikipedia. No-one seriously doubts that the sign in them image was held at that rally, and we're simply not going to have special requirements, policies, or double-standards regarding this image. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the implementation of our core policies with reference to images, Jay, may I suggest you comment on the pages where those violations are occurring, instead of here? Thanks. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I have absolutely no problem with the implementation of our core policies with reference to images, and they will be implemented here exactly as they are in all other articles; policy is a reflection of Wikipedia practice. If you have an issue with that, RR, may I suggest you attempt to get the policies changed on the relevant pages, instead of here? Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, you've completely misunderstood. Never mind, its my fault - I framed my point as a question, which meant that the temptation to mirror that question with another, however nonsensical, was too great for you to resist. (It was funny the first time, in 2006.) Still, I am always willing to repeat things if necessary. To repeat: if you believe our core policies are being violated in other articles, comment on those articles' talkpages. If you believe our core policies are out of sync with practice, comment on the policy talkpages. What is tediously irrelevant is commenting on this talkpage that "our policies are being applied here and not elsewhere. I won't have it, I tell you!". --Relata refero (disp.) 06:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I think something along the lines of what Boodles is suggesting here would be a good solution. The image should also be moved down to the "Anti-Zionism and the Left" section. (Why was it placed in the "Arguments for and against" section?)--G-Dett (talk) 15:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think wikipedia needs to enhance and hopefully streamline its processes for dealing with content disputes. There just isn't enough effort going into fixing this wikiwide problem, even though it's quite clear it's our number one challenge. Gatoclass (talk) 15:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

True that, GC.--G-Dett (talk) 18:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I find this solution optimal but it's better than the present situation; in particular I disagree with the claim that the image is "unequivocally" an example of "new antisemitism." It just looks like "antisemitism" to me. csloat (talk) 17:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

What I suggest is moving it down to "Anti-Zionism and the Left," and rewriting the caption along the following lines: Photo taken by Zombietime, depicting a placard allegedly held aloft at a 2003 antiwar rally in San Francisco. NAS-proponents argue that imagery and rhetoric of this kind is increasingly commonplace among the antiwar left, a charge that many on the left dispute.--G-Dett (talk) 18:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind moving the image to where you suggest, but perhaps the caption could read instead, "An alleged photograph of an alleged sign at an alleged rally of a phenomenon that doesn't actually exist." IronDuke 15:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

"Allegedly" appears once in my proposed caption, and I am happy to drop it.--G-Dett (talk) 20:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Photo taken by Zombietime, depicting a placard held aloft at a 2003 antiwar rally in San Francisco would be fine. We don't need to recapitulate the debate in a caption. IronDuke 22:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. In fact I think the debate is much more important the date and setting of the photo, and given that the information about the date and setting is not reliably sourced, perhaps we should eliminate that first sentence, with the caption reading simply: "NAS-proponents argue that imagery and rhetoric of this kind is increasingly commonplace among the antiwar left, a charge that many on the left dispute."

Is that standard wiki-practice, extending debates on the topic into captions? Can you show me where else that's been done? IronDuke 17:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, it's done with the lead image of the article on the Israeli apartheid analogy, where the caption reads:

The West Bank Barrier, a structure that has been called an "apartheid wall" by critics of Israeli policy. Israeli officials describe the partition, constructed in 2002, as a security barrier or fence.

I'm not going to repeat the sophistry I've found so exasperating and crippling to this discussion thus far – the sophistry, that is, of extrapolating "standard wiki-practice" from single examples, and then issuing a papal bull in basso profundo declaring that we're simply not going to have special requirements, policies, or double-standards regarding this image, meaning deviation in some cherry-picked respect from the one cherry-picked example. But it seems like sort of a no-brainer to me that with images ilustrating controversial concepts, captions would refer to the element of the controversy that the image is illustrating.--G-Dett (talk) 14:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

What?!?? How dare you imply I and other editors on this page favor apartheid?! </end G-Dett impersonation>. Okay... do you have an example from an article that isn't a horrific POV mess? IronDuke 14:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Did Crum really offer to be an unbiased mediator? --Relata refero (disp.) 18:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's where Crum375 intervened, protecting the page. At several points Crum did suggest formal mediation, but editors from both sides noted that formal mediation under Mel Etitis had failed. (It had run quickly aground when the side that had made conditions – regarding who would be the mediator, who could participate (I for one was not allowed), and so on – and had each of those conditions met, then refused to participate.) So Crum continued to act as the de facto mediator on the article talk page for three months before unprotecting. See archive 12.--G-Dett (talk) 19:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources

While some editors were away, there was a discussion over Wikipedia:Reliable sources: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand".

In particular, it is my view that Tariq Ali, although certainly notable, is not a reliable source on the subject of antisemitism. Since New antisemitism is clearly a topic within the general category of antisemitism, the paragraph sourced to him should be removed from the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Good thinking, Malcolm. Because Ali is not an expert in a different topic, he can't be reliable for this one. That's good, sound thinking and tight logic.--G-Dett (talk) 15:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

New antisemitism is a topic within the general category of antisemitism. If you think the claims of New antisemitism are true, or not true, that does not make it any less a topic within the category of antisemitism. Tariq Ali is not, as far as I know, a reliable source on antisemitism. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

However, it may not actually be true that "new antisemitism is a topic within the general category of antisemitism." Fer instance, the debate about stem cell research is not necessarily a subset of cell biology--it's become a battleground that often has little to do with biology per say, but instead religion , ethics, politics and whatnot. In fact, it is generally the view of the opponents of the NAS concept that the concept has little or nothing to do with antisemitism, and is in fact using the concept of antisemitism to further a different agenda (anti-leftism, anti-Islam etc). Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 15:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

As I said, if the claims of new antisemitism are correct, or not, it is still a topic within the category of antisemitism. Also, I do not see how the subject of stem cell research can be separated from cell biology, no matter what the political discussion. Likewise laser weapons are a controversial topic within laser technology, but that does not make it any less a topic of laser technology; and I do not see how someone could be a reliable source on laser weapons without being a reliable source in laser technology. (Anti-war issues are a separate subject.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Precisely, Boodles. Malcolm, whether I or anyone else believes the truth claims of NAS is totally irrelevant, a complete red herring. NAS is not a topic within traditional antisemitism; according to both its proponents and its detractors, it's a topic connecting traditional antisemitism to other topics, for example Islamism, Western anticolonial activism, and international debates about Israel-Palestine. Your "Florence, Italy" analogy has gotten you into a big muddle. To say that Ali can't be reliable on "new antisemitism" because he isn't an authority on traditional antisemitism makes as much sense as saying Bauer can't be reliable on NAS because he isn't an authority on Israel-Palestine.--G-Dett (talk) 15:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Even if NAS were to traditional antisemitism what Florence is to Italy (and it isn't), it would still be sophistry to go up the ladder of knowledge until you can disqualify a source as no longer an authority. Even if we accept the absurd analogy, in other words, you're still left with the fact that there are authorities on Florentine architecture who are not experts on Italy.--G-Dett (talk) 15:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett, Show me where I made any claim for New antisemitism being correct? Please, read I have written. In fact, I have no idea if the claims of new antisemitism are correct, or not. What I have said is that it seems impossible to be a reliable source for new antisemitism without being a reliable source of antisemitism. Instead of saying I am in "a big muddle", which is incivility, please discuss the subject itself. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm, you keep saying "If you think the claims of New antisemitism are true, or not true, that does not make it any less a topic within the category of antisemitism," even though nothing I'm saying about this "topic within" business has anything to do with what I think about the truth claims of NAS. It's a total red herring, so I wish you'd stop invoking it as if it were relevant. As for "discussing the subject itself," I think you'll find I've done that. My last two posts on your sources-must-be-experts-on-traditional-antisemitism-to-be-reliable-on-NAS argument will be my last, unless there's some indication that other editors find your reasoning compelling.--G-Dett (talk) 16:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no "red herring", I have explained my views on this clearly. By calling my argument a "red herring", you are claiming that I am trying to deceive the other editors (incivility...again?). I am trying to explain how I see this, and disagreeing with you does not make it a red herring, nor does my disagreeing with you make me wrong. Up to this point, the only editor who has offered any counter-argument is Boodlesthecat, and I have replied to that. So far your objections seem to be:

1. you don't like it, and
2. that you would rather deal with new antisemitism as a political (New Left) issue than as antisemitism. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh Malcolm, I give up. How am I supposed to respond to this? You don't understand what I write, you perceive slights in everything, and you keep posting these non sequiturs. Civility is a multifaceted thing; it does not consist merely of maintaining a prose style ploddingly free of irony and badinage. It includes things like reading posts carefully, taking seriously the ideas of other editors, and fairly and thoroughly and candidly representing those ideas even as you scrutinize and critique them. In post after post you fail to pay me any of these courtesies. I leave you to Boodles.--G-Dett (talk) 17:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett, in the introduction of the article it says this:

Proponents of the concept argue that anti-Zionism, anti-Americanism, anti-globalization, third worldism, and demonization of Israel or double standards applied to its conduct may be linked to antisemitism, or constitute disguised antisemitism.

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

To me it seems logical that the reliable sources to use in the article are knowledgeable on the subject of antisemitism. How can someone know if these claims made of a new antisemitism are justified, or not, unless they know the subject of antisemitism? How can a source be a reliable source if there is no expert knowledge of the subject the claims are based on? That is why I think that the criticisms of Norman Finkelstein carry weight, because he has expert knowledge of antisemitism. On the other hand, why should I consider Tariq Ali a reliable source, if he has no particular knowledge of the subject being discussed? It is not a question of for or against New Antisemitism, it is a question of expert, or not expert, on the subject at hand.

Sorry if I have given you a hard time. One of my favorite proverbs comes from Africa: "Never get between a hippopotamus and the water". I am just heading for the water and you happen to be standing there. Please do not take it personally. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)The variant in my family was "never get between a woman and her gin," and guess where I'm headed. The short answer to your question is that Ali is a highly regarded, Oxford-educated historian who has written influentially on "anti-Zionism, anti-Americanism, anti-globalization, third worldism," and sundry other topics central to the concept of "new antisemitism."--G-Dett (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

So who are you calling a hippo then? Anyway, your arguments have been refuted several times Malcolm, why do you keep repeating them? Once again - this isn't a concept with academic notability so there is no need to be an "academic expert" on antisemitism to have a notable opinion on the topic. Why are you making up a RS standard that applies only to Ali and no other source in this article (or any other article for that matter)? In fact, this is a topic that is mostly debated among media pundits, of which Ali is one. That aside, Ali also has expertise in discussions of the Arab-Israeli conflict in the Middle East, which gives him expertise on this topic (regardless of any supposed expertise on "antisemitism" per se). Are you really suggesting that only experts on racism should be quoted here? Good luck with that. csloat (talk) 18:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that if I have not made my point clear by now, that saying more will not help. I already knew that csloat and G-Dett are in favor of keeping the Tariq Ali paragraph in the article, so that is nothing new. If other editors have anything to say, that might be interesting. If that paragraph does stay in the article I will do some editing on it, and move it to a better section of the article.

I have seen nothing to establish that Tariq Ali has expert knowledge of antisemitism, and do not regard him as a reliable source for this article. For some reason csloat seems to think that saying my arguments have been refuted is the same as refuting them. Whatever. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not "for some reason" that I say that; it's for a very specific reason -- they have been refuted, and both I and G-Dett have just refuted them again, and again you refused to acknowledge or respond to the refutation. Hope this helps! csloat (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...I must have missed where you did that refuting. Tell me again. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Did you miss this? Because you haven't responded to it.--G-Dett (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure I saw it. Its just a claim. And you do not show anything that would establish him a reliable source for this article. He appears to know nothing about antisemitism. And, for that matter, I have seen nothing from him about New Antisemitism aside from one short paragraph in one short article which was published in CounterPunch, and which does not cite a single source [31]. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Glad you "saw" it. Just so I understand, is it your position that even though (as you've quoted) "Proponents of the concept argue that anti-Zionism, anti-Americanism, anti-globalization, third worldism, and demonization of Israel or double standards applied to its conduct may be linked to antisemitism, or constitute disguised antisemitism," the only relevant term in this list of NAS's component parts is antisemitism? Expertise in any of the other constitutive elements of NAS is irrelevant? Or is your position that Ali is not a recognized and influential source on things like anti-Zionism, anti-Americanism, anti-globalization, third worldism, and so on?--G-Dett (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

We have already been around the block a few times with is discussion. So, in reply, I will just recopy what I wrote above:

To me it seems logical that the reliable sources to use in the article are knowledgeable on the subject of antisemitism. How can someone know if these claims made of a new antisemitism are justified, or not, unless they know the subject of antisemitism? How can a source be a reliable source if there is no expert knowledge of the subject the claims are based on? That is why I think that the criticisms of Norman Finkelstein carry weight, because he has expert knowledge of antisemitism. On the other hand, why should I consider Tariq Ali a reliable source, if he has no particular knowledge of the subject being discussed? It is not a question of for or against New Antisemitism, it is a question of expert, or not expert, on the subject at hand.

In the mean time I still have not seen anything to back up the claim that my views have been "refuted". Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If I can make a request, Malcolm? Should you find yourself with fingers hovering above your keyboard deliberating whether to type –

1. a complete non sequitur
2. a verbatim iteration of a previously typed and unrelated comment
3. an African proverb
4. a whining reference to imagined incivility

–my preference would be for the proverb.--G-Dett (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree; I like proverbs too. And, since you claim to have missed it, Malcolm, here was my most recent refutation of your arguments as well. Good day! csloat (talk) 20:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This [32] contains just unsupported claims that Tariq Ali is a reliable source for this article, and contains no documentation. There is nothing to show his knowledge of antisemitism. And even putting that aside, there is nothing to show the has even has knowledge of New Antisemitism. As far is I can see all he has published on the subject of New Antisemitism is one short paragraph which is in one short article that was published by CounterPunch, and which does not cite a single source [33]. Why do you think writing one single paragraph on that subject qualifies him as a reliable source?

As far as I can see, this paragraph is all that he ever published on the subject:

The campaign against the supposed new 'anti-semitism' in Europe today is basicly a cynical ploy on the part of the Israeli Government to seal off the Zionist state from any criticism of its regular and consistent brutality against the Palestinians. The daily hits carried out by the IDF have wrecked the towns and villages of Palestine, killed thousands of civilians (especially children) and European citizens are aware of this fact. Criticism of Israel can not and should not be equated with anti-semitism. The fact is that Israel is not a weak, defenceless state. It is the strongest state in the region. It possesses real, not imaginary, weapons of mass destruction. It possesses more tanks and bomber jets and pilots than the rest of the Arab world put together. To say that the Zionist state is threatened by any Arab country is pure demagogy. It is Israel that creates the conditions, which produce suicide bombers. Even a few staunch Zionists are beginning to realise that this is a fact.. That is why we know that as long as Palestine remains oppressed there will be no peace in the region.

That just does not seem enough to qualify Tariq Ali as a reliable source on new antisemitism. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

His knowledge of "antisemitism" is not the issue here, as has been pointed out to you over and over again. He has written over twenty books and the topics vary but they include such things as "anti-Zionism, anti-Americanism, anti-globalization, third worldism," for example, which are all quite relevant to "new antisemitism," whatever it really is. Finally, as I have asked before and you ignored, why are you applying such strict scrutiny to the qualifications of only this one source on this one article in all of Wikipedia? Is there some standard for source citations you are referencing here that is different for this article than every other one, and specifically different for this particular source? Could you go back and reread the statement I made earlier that you linked, and actually respond to the points I made there? Thanks. csloat (talk) 00:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I have answered many times.

Perhaps you could reply to my question: How can Tariq Ali be considered a reliable source for an article on New Antisemitism if he has published nothing on the subject of antisemitism, and even on the subject of new antisemitism he has published just one small paragraph which is in one small article, which was an unsourced article in CounterPunch? If he has published nothing on the subject, how can he be a reliable source in that subject? It does not make sense. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You have not answered once. If I am mistaken, please show me the link, or please explain again your answer to the specific questions I have asked. Your question, interestingly, is one I directly answered in the paragraph above -- to quote: "His knowledge of "antisemitism" is not the issue here, as has been pointed out to you over and over again. He has written over twenty books and the topics vary but they include such things as "anti-Zionism, anti-Americanism, anti-globalization, third worldism," for example, which are all quite relevant to "new antisemitism," whatever it really is." You see, Malcolm, if you read the first paragraph of this article, "new antisemitism" is defined precisely by all of those things that we agree Ali is an expert in -- topics he has published over two dozen books on. I'm impressed that you have read every page of all of those books to get to the point where you can claim that is the one paragraph he has published on the topic, but that paragraph is reliable enough for this page given that it is published in a reliable source and he is a reliable source of information on the topic. You don't have to believe him or agree with him to acknowledge that. csloat (talk) 03:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

csloat, I have answered. My explanation of my reasoning is my explanation, and I have made that quite clear. I would think that by now you would understand that I consider your questions pointless because you have done nothing to show why Tariq Ali -- who has written nothing, or next to nothing, on either antisemitism or new-antisemitism -- should be considered a reliable source in this article. I understand that you say that he has written extensivly on "anti-Zionism, anti-Americanism, anti-globalization, third worldism,", and I do not deny it. I just do not think any of that makes him a reliable source for this article, unless you are claiming that anti-Zionism and anti-semitism actually are the same topic. Otherwise, why should I care what he thinks about Israel (anti-Zionism) here in this article?

But since other editors seem obsessed with the rather inconsequential issue of that lousy disputed image, they are ignoring the issue of RS; which determines the actual content of any article. So I will return to this discussion when everyone finishes wasting time on that. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm, neither csloat nor I has suggested that "anti-Zionism and antisemitism are the same topic," nor have we put forth any arguments predicated on that notion. That's just flat-out strawman balderdash. If you're doing this intentionally, knock it off already. If there are reading comprehension issues, get yourself a mentor.

The point is that authority and expertise in all of the constitutive elements of NAS – which holds that "anti-Zionism, anti-Americanism, anti-globalization, third worldism, and demonization of Israel or double standards applied to its conduct may be linked to antisemitism, or constitute disguised antisemitism" – are relevant credentials for this article's sources. Obviously many of our sources have better expertise than Ali regarding Jewish history and traditional antisemitism, but few if any have a better background in the other constitutive elements of NAS.

Please do not now repaste in some randomly selected irrelevant post from earlier in the discussion, or say "we've gone round and round, and I'll merely reiterate" yadda yadda. Nowhere have you addressed this point: that there are constitutive elements of NAS (by every definition of it, pro and con) other than traditional antisemitism, and that therefore other forms of expertise are relevant. If you are prepared to respond meaningfully to that issue, do so. But bear in mind that WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is a form of disruptive editing.--G-Dett (talk) 13:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Malcolm, if you still have concerns despite the explanation here, can I suggest you take up this specific case at the reliable sources noticeboard? Right now you're just continuing to restate the same argument repeatedly and I don't think that's going to help resolve the dispute. Shell ^babelfish 15:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Defining the the subject of this article

There seem to be (at least) two definitions of what this article is about. NB: How the article is defined is important because it is the deciding factor on all issues of Wikipedia: Reliable Sources, and what is or is not accepted as reliable sourcing determines the actual content of the article.

1. My own view is that New-Antisemitism is a topic in the category: Antisemitism.
2. The view of G-Dett and csloat is that this article is about Western Imperialism in a particular disguise called New-Antisemitism.

While a lot of editors are wasting time arguing about one crummy image, other editors are redefining the subject of this article.

Editors are, of course, welcome to decide which definition of the article it will be, but the matter needs attention and discussion. But if some editors do not get over their obsession with one unimportant image, they will make it very easy for G-Dett and csloat to continue to push their POV into the article without others even noticing -- much less resisting -- the direction the article has taken, or the reason behind that direction. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Whether wilfully or in good-faith incompetence, Malcolm once again grossly misstates my view and I believe that of csloat. My view of NAS is that it's more or less what's described in the lead of this article, and that is the only definition I've invoked or relied on in my exchanges with Malcolm.

Malcolm, you've shown your adeptness at cut-and-paste; perhaps that would be the safest way for you to relay my views to other editors.--G-Dett (talk) 15:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

So, G-Dett, it is you position that every criticism you have made or ever will make of me is completely true, while everything I ever have ever said or ever will say about you is completely false; and, additionally, you claim that you must be right because you say so? G-Dett, please try to get this figured out: I am participating in the discussion for this article to say what I think is right, if you like it or not. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

No, my position is simply that my working definition of NAS is the one provided by the article, and I would be very appreciative if your posts reflected instead of distorted that.--G-Dett (talk) 15:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This is the definition of New-Antisemitism provided in the article: "New antisemitism is the concept that a new form of antisemitism is on the rise in the 21st century, emanating simultaneously from the left, the right, and fundamentalist Islam, and tending to manifest itself as opposition to Zionism and the State of Israel." I do not see how that coincides very well with your version the subject. Perhaps you need to work on your reading comprehension. Or, is your problem just that you have the intention to turn this article into a forum to attack Israel and Zionism as (what you consider) manifestations of Western imperialism? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:CIV; don't use this discussion page as a forum to attack other editors. Thanks, csloat (talk) 16:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I will work on my reading comprehension.--G-Dett (talk) 17:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:CIV? Show me what I have said that was incivil, and I will apologize to you (regardless of how many times you have been incivil to me -- apparently without regrets. [34], just to supply one diff). Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually I have bent over backwards to show you the utmost civility despite repeated provocations. But that is neither here nor there -- your incivility this time around was directed toward G-Dett, specifically, where you accuse her of "the intention to turn this article into a forum to attack Israel and Zionism..." It's a really unfair attribution, and it's a bit over the top considering we are talking about a single quotation from a noted pundit with respected credentials who is really not saying anything any more hysterical than much of the other stuff already in the article. csloat (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

csloat, you are just saying that you think I am wrong. Even if that is so, and I think it is not, in what way is that WP:CIV? Since when is a mistake, supposed, or actual, incivil? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It's the attribution of destructive and malicious intentions to your fellow editor that I find uncivil, not the fact that you are also wrong. csloat (talk) 18:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure why you think that what the New Left position on this issue amounts to "attribution of destructive and malicious intentions". Is it now you view that what Tariq Ali wrote in this article [35] is not only incorrect, but also "destructive and malicious"? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You didn't attribute those intentions to Ali; you attributed them to G-Dett. Do you really not understand this? Here is what you wrote: "is your problem just that you have the intention to turn this article into a forum to attack Israel and Zionism." If you still don't get it, just forget it, ok? She apparently hasn't taken that much offense, and I'm not asking you to apologize, just asking you not to do it again; either way, there's no point in continuing this back and forth. csloat (talk) 18:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did ask that question. And I will continue to ask questions about points that need to be clarified. In this case, for example, you are saying that Tariq Ali's views on Zionism and Israel are good, but you do not want to be associated with them? I am not sure I understand you. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It appears you don't understand me, I agree. I'll try one more time, but then let's drop it. I didn't say anything about whether Ali's views were "good"; what I said was uncivil was the claim that G-Dett has the intention to disrupt this article by "turning it into a forum to attack Israel and Zionism." Hopefully that helps you understand, but if not, let's just move on; it's not important enough for this level of hermeneutic analysis. csloat (talk) 19:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not recall using the word "disrupt". Where was that? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Just forget it, ok? No hard feelings, but I don't want to explain it again. csloat (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm, I do not understand your comment. The title of this section is "definition of the subject" and I would expect discussion of the definition or definitions - an object of discussion can have several definitions (and people with different views often differ in their definitions; WP has to provide all notable views) - of "new antisemitism." But instead you open with a comment of how this article should be categorized which is something different. And clearly, many articles belong to two or more categories. I do not see why we must be limited to one definition or category, but be that as it may, discuss definitions here, and categories in another section. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not see where I used the word "categorized"; although I did use the word "category", in the sense that New Antisemitism is a topic in the category antisemitism. That is defining, even if not a complete definition; and it follows that if New Antisemitism is a topic in the category of antisemitism, then the article needs sources that are reliable in that.

The definition given in the article is, New antisemitism is the concept that a new form of antisemitism is on the rise in the 21st century, emanating simultaneously from the left, the right, and fundamentalist Islam, and tending to manifest itself as opposition to Zionism and the State of Israel. Logically the article needs sources that are reliable in the general category of antisemitism, because New Antisemitism is defined as a new development in antisemitism.

There are sources in the article that are reliable by that definition; and some of those sources agree with the premise of New Antisemitism, while others reject that premise. There are also sources in the article that I think do not meet the criteria of reliable source for the subject of this article, and I think they should be removed. It is not an issue of for or against, but qualified or unqualified sources for the subject at hand. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm, I guess English is not your first language, but I do wish you read Peter Cohen's useful comment before replying. Articles are not "reliable by a definition," although they may be relevant in terms of a given definition - this is simple English usage. Also, the category we put an article in is not the same thing as defining the subject of an article. Trust me, they really are not the same thing. My basic points remain: "New anti-Semitism" may have more than one definition, depending on one's point of view; even given one definition, the article on new anti-Semitism can belong in more than one Wikipedia category. What you wrote is either just poor English, or sophistry. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I have replied to Peter Cohen's message.

English is my first language, but I am just a simple uneducated worker...with no education aside whatever self-education I have acquired from reading and thinking. My only other education is technical training in various aspects of the visual arts, and in some crafts, that I acquired here in the USA and in Italy. I almost did not even graduate from high school, particularly after getting expelled in my senior year. So I am essentially a blue collar worker among the other editors here, many of whom have advanced degrees and good educations. It does not always make a good mix, but I try not to step on toes too hard with my steel toe work boots. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking at Malcolm's analysis makes me think of one of Michael Hinton's articles which considers how the scope of an adjectivally qualified noun "A-ish N" ("fictional kings", for example) relates to the scope of the the on its own "N" ("kings"). Is the set of fictional kings a subset of that of kings? Malcolm seems to me to assume that A-ish N's are Ns. That new antisemitism is a subset of antisemitism. But new AS is a political term and part of the debate on what motivates criticism of Israel and what is legitimate to say in that political sphere. The term "new antisemitism" is intended to generate a particular sort of discourse. In a similar way, the choice of terms such as "Arab" versus "Palestinian", "occupied territories" instead of "disputed territories", of "Zionist entity" and of "Axis of Evil" shape the discourse in particular ways. It isn't just experts on antisemitism whoacan comment on the subject but experts in political discourse, especally as relates to the Middle-East conflict. Tariq Ali, as a writer within the field of middle Eastern conflict is an appropriate source to use. However, it would also to be appropriate to indicate where he is coming from i.e. that he is a leftist writer and activist. His being British isn't what I would have picked out as one of the most salient facts. I'm not actually sure what passport he holds. The article on him describes him as British-Pakistani.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I have been trying for some time to get someone to explain to me how a writer who has no reliable knowledge of Antisemitism can be qualified to say that New Antisemitism has nothing to do with Antisemitism. New Antisemitism has the premise that it describes a new development in Antisemitism, "emanating simultaneously from the left, the right, and fundamentalist Islam, and tending to manifest itself as opposition to Zionism and the State of Israel." If Tariq Ali is not a reliable source for Antisemitism, how can he possibly know if this premise of New Antisemitism is correct or not? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

But, Malcolm, what I'm trying to point out to you is that discussion of a term should not be confined to the apparent scope of the term. The scope of an article on "The Zionist entity" shouldn't just be about Zionism and Israel (the apparent scope of the term) but about who use the term, what they hope to imply by its use and why. The scope of an article on "the Axis of Evil" shouldn't be just about the five or so countries GWB labeled with the term and their relationships with each other but about why he used it and its significance to American foreign policy. Discussion about the terms "Arab" or "Palestinian" to describe most of the non-Jewish people living in (or with ancestors who lived until 1947 or 1967 within) the area surrounded by Lebanon, Jordan, the Red Sea, Egypt and the Mediterranean, shouldn't be just about those people but about why people choose one or other term to describe them. In a similar way discussion on NAS shouldn't just be about NAS itself but about who created the term, why and what criticisms have been made of them and their motivations.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand our NPOV policy. You and I may disagree as to who is well-informed on anti-Semitism. It just does not matter. The threshold for inclusion in an article is not that an editor thinks the author has "reliable knowledge" of the topic. The threshold for inclusion is that the author represents a notable point of view and you are free to feel that view is ignorant or unreliable. We should find quotes or information regarding that notable POV from reliable sources. What makes the source reliable is not that you think it represents your view, or a reliable view, or a well-informed view. I wish you would read our policies. You keep mixing up elements of different policies and it takes us nowhere. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

How is it possible for you to misunderstand so completely? I know I write English well enough for that. Wikipedia policy for reliable sources does, in fact, say that sources must be knowledgeable on the subject at hand. I said very clearly that I have no interest in excluding any notable POV, but that source does need to be a reliable source for the subject of the article. Just being notable is not enough. Maybe we need to discuss just what the subject of this article really is. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Malcolm, but the new Anti-Semitism is about anti-Semitism, Israel, Zionism, and anti-Israeli or anti-Zionist elements especially on the left. A reliable source need be reliable only with regards to one of these, and long as the POV within the source is addressing explicitly the New anti-Semitism. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

See the section below, where they are trying to remove Bauer. By the way, Bauer doesn't call it "New antisemitism" only because he insists that it isn't New. As he says elsewhere:

You see Western antisemitism is not new. This concept of “New Antisemitism” is, I think, quite false. It is the old pre-Hitler antisemitism that utilises occasions to come to the fore when something triggers [it]. Now it is the Israeli situation. If tomorrow there was suddenly a change in the situation in the Middle East and serious negotiations started between Israel and the Palestinians ending with even a temporary compromise for a number of years, that would mean, I am quite sure there would be a decline in antisemitism in the West because the trigger is gone. But the antisemitism would not disappear, it would still be there and there would then be another trigger. It’s a very slow process to deal with, latent antisemitism.[36]

--Jayjg ^(talk) 00:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I have not tried to remove Bauer. There are editors, for example you, who argue that source materials that do not use a term or concept can't be used in articles about that term or concept, but I've always argued (consistently, not just according to whether I endorse the term or concept or not) for a more nuanced approach.--G-Dett (talk) 03:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little stricter, myself. Actually, I think much of the material should be moved to Antisemitism since 1945 or somesuch. After all, there's rather more consensus that it exists than "new antisemitism", and it would be a perfectly appropriate place for the zombietime image, as well as Bauer and Lewis' various waves theories. —Ashley Y 04:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, You still have not resolved for me this problem: If a writer has no knowledge of the subject of antisemitism, how can that writer be a reliable source on of the premise that there is a new form of antisemitism called New Antisemitism?

But, even leaving that objection aside, Tariq Ali has, as far as I know, written only one short essay that mentions New Antisemitism, which essay was published in CounterPunch, and only one short paragraph in that short unreferenced essay mentions New Antisemitism [37]. How does one paragraph in CounterPunch qualify Tariq Ali as a reliable source for this article? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, you keep mixing things up. "Reliable sources" refers not to people but to publications. We do not want to base Wikipedia on fly-by-night web-sites and self-published books. Counter-Punch is an established magazine on a range of current events and is thus a reliable source. Reliable source does not refer to Tariq Ali; the policy that refers to Tariq Ali is NPOV. NPOV requires us to include notable points of view. Is his POV notable? I think so. Is Tariq Ali an expert on his own point of view? Yes, absolutely. Tariq Ali is a very good expert on Tariq Ali's views. He is a notable public intellectual and his view is relevant to this topic. Remember, RS is a guideline; NPOV is actual policy and non-negotiable. Tariq Ali is a famous commentator on Israel and Zionism. You cannot silence him just because you disagree with him or think he is not a scholar. The only question is, is he a notable commentator. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, is your participation in this article primarily as an editor or as an administrator? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You should know better than to ask. Have I once identified myself as an administrator? Why does it even matter? Sysops are people with powers to block users, protect pages, or delete pages. Have I used any of these sysop powers? Have I or anyone else suggested or even hinted even once that they apply here? I do not understand your question. Why do you ask? I am an editor just like you, and deserve all the respect you would give any other editor. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure we all agree that each of us is entitled to respectful treatment from others. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You make it sound as though I committed a wiki-crime to ask. I have seen administrators act in very different capacities in the process of editing articles (and I have also seen some very sudden switches from editor to administrator), so it seems to me a reasonable question considering the authority which you assume when making your pronouncements on that is allowed in this article, and what is not.

It has been a nice day in the City today, and I have just gotten back from a long walk with my wife. I think I will leave this wonderful article till tomorrow. Salve. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not think it is a crime to ask. I do think it is a crime that anyone thinks administrators have any special authority. The real authority at Wikipedia is the wiki-community of editors, to which both of us belong. I am sorry if I bristled at what I took to be a suggestion that somehow we were not interacting like wikipedian editors. I think there is no higher authority than the Wikipedia editor (except arguably Jimbo) and it bothers me to see that questioned. Sorry for any misunderstanding. I stand by what I wrote about Tariq Ali and reliable sources, and I stand by that with the greatest authority anyone can have here, that of Wikipedia editor (the same authority you have, even if we disagree). I hope you continue to have a good day! Salve, Slrubenstein | Talk 21:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, you wrote above, "Yes, Malcolm, but the new Anti-Semitism is about anti-Semitism, Israel, Zionism, and anti-Israeli or anti-Zionist elements especially on the left. A reliable source need be reliable only with regards to one of these, and long as the POV within the source is addressing explicitly the New anti-Semitism."

This is exactly where you are making your mistake. New antisemitism is not about antisemitism, and Israel, and Zionism, and anti-Israeli, etc. It is about antisemitism only, but with the specific claim that, in recent times, antisemitism is often disguised as anti-Zionism. The only thing this article is about is antisemitism, and reliable sources must be knowledgeable in antisemitism to be qualified to judge if the premise of New Antisemitism is correct or not.

You also wrote above, "You cannot silence him", ie Tariq Ali, "just because you disagree with him or think he is not a scholar." Slrubenstein, this is an insulting claim to make against me. Even though I think you are wrong, I have not, and will not, accuse you of bad faith. Do not accuse me of bad faith editing. Thank you. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yehuda Bauer

The Yehuda Bauer section refers only to a single essay, which nowhere mentions "new antisemitism". The section would be appropriate for Waves of antisemitism or Antisemitism since 1945 or whatever, but it should be removed from this article. —Ashley Y 19:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I brought this up many months ago; I can't remember what happened. It should also be noted that the "essay" in question is actually just a PDF file of remarks he delivered at a departmental talk at UC Santa Cruz. Though available online, they were never "published," so to speak.

The larger pattern here is exaggeration and inflation of the contributions of scholars (or "prestige" writers like Tariq Ali) to this subject; I've been trying to draw attention to this. I don't agree with (or even understand) much of what Malcolm says in the preceding section, but I'm with him on the fact that too much is made of a short essay by Ali.

My feeling is that this article needs to be more straightforward about the literature on "New Antisemitism": it should give more credit to the popular writers (Chesler, Foxman, et al) who were central to the formulation and dissemination of the concept, and stop exaggerating the role of scholars who have commented on it in passing. We've simply poured box wine into boutique bottles.

This problem has in turn given rise to a fairly serious WP:SYNTH problem: a periodically revived popular meme is presented as if it were a recognized scholarly concept with an established bibliographic history. In fact this "history" – which joins an ADL book written in the 1970 to research by Chip Berlet in the 1990s to a speech by Wistrich at the Israeli president's house to some informal remarks by Bauer at a departmental talk – exists nowhere except on Wikipedia. Every time a book or spate of books or an op-ed or whatever about the "new antisemitism" emerges, the subject is presented as a new and unprecedented phenomenon happening right now. The authors never trace any intellectual genealogy or "history of the concept." That's our invention, based on primary-source research, and fairly hokey primary-source research at that.--G-Dett (talk) 20:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I definitely agree Bauer should be removed; if it isn't talking about the topic of the article AND it isn't from a published reliable source, it really has no place in the article. The synthesis problem is also quite a serious one -- if this narrative only appears on Wikipedia, it doesn't belong here at all. WP:NOR is quite clear on that, I believe. csloat (talk) 20:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

As I point out above, Bauer doesn't call it "New antisemitism" only because he insists that it isn't New. As he says elsewhere:

You see Western antisemitism is not new. This concept of “New Antisemitism” is, I think, quite false. It is the old pre-Hitler antisemitism that utilises occasions to come to the fore when something triggers [it]. Now it is the Israeli situation. If tomorrow there was suddenly a change in the situation in the Middle East and serious negotiations started between Israel and the Palestinians ending with even a temporary compromise for a number of years, that would mean, I am quite sure there would be a decline in antisemitism in the West because the trigger is gone. But the antisemitism would not disappear, it would still be there and there would then be another trigger. It’s a very slow process to deal with, latent antisemitism.[38]

--Jayjg ^(talk) 00:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

So Bauer should not be removed (and perhaps indeed be expans=ded upon) - this is a notable view and needs to be included. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Saying there's nothing new about the new antisemitism and that the concept itself is "false" is a pretty big caveat. The quote Jay provides above seems more relevant than what we're using now; furthermore it puts what we're using now in a very different light. Jay, have you been aware all along that the entire Bauer section describes something he believes isn't an example of – and doesn't support the idea of – a "new antisemitism"?--G-Dett (talk) 03:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett, I believe you have misunderstood Bauer. He agrees with others that the events described as "New antisemitism" are indeed antisemitism; the only thing he disagrees with is that it is "New". Rather, he thinks the underlying motivations are the same as those found in pre-Hitler antisemitism. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, what have I misunderstood? I'm trying to understand why a writer who believes the NAS concept is "false" is presented as a proponent. Your riposte doesn't speak to that. It is as if we were discussing a source for the Israeli apartheid analogy and I said, "Jay, the source agrees with others that the practices are wrong; the only thing he disagrees with is that they are like apartheid."--G-Dett (talk) 02:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Please read the rest of the quotation, for context.

It is the old pre-Hitler antisemitism that utilises occasions to come to the fore when something triggers [it]. Now it is the Israeli situation. If tomorrow there was suddenly a change in the situation in the Middle East and serious negotiations started between Israel and the Palestinians ending with even a temporary compromise for a number of years, that would mean, I am quite sure there would be a decline in antisemitism in the West because the trigger is gone. But the antisemitism would not disappear, it would still be there and there would then be another trigger. It’s a very slow process to deal with, latent antisemitism.

As Bauer makes clear, he thinks it is indeed antisemitism, just not "New". Rather, he thinks it's the same old pre-Hitler antisemitism, with the current trigger being "the Israeli situation". In fact, his view is the exact opposite of Klug's. Klug thinks it is "A new phenomenon, but not antisemitism". Bauer thinks it is "Antisemitism, but not a new phenomenon". Jayjg ^(talk) 02:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

If Bauer thinks "it" is antisemitism, just not new, why are his findings in New antisemitism instead of antisemitism? And why have we presented Bauer as a proponent of NAS when he thinks it's false? And what exactly is the "it"? Is it the same "It" as Klug's?--G-Dett (talk) 23:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Because he's describing the exact same phenomenon, he just doesn't like to call it "New". He agrees with Wistrich's view that, among other things, "there is a receptivity, in large parts of the NGO international community to the new antisemitism which they of course would deny is antisemitic." And I'm not sure why you say "we presented Bauer as a proponent of NAS" - we don't label him as a "proponent", any more than we label Klug as an "opponent". And yes, it's the same "it" we're talking about, antisemitism expressed as opposition to Israel. Klug says it's not antisemitism. Bauer says it's not new. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

That "New antisemitism" be "new" seems pretty crucial to the concept. It's certainly crucial in Bauer's eyes, as he calls the concept of NAS "quite false" citing precisely these grounds. It seems very original-researchy of you to say Meh, he's basically talking about the same thing even though he doesn't agree it's "new antisemitism" and refuses to call it that. You're "not sure" why I say we're presenting Bauer as a proponent? I say that because any literate person who reads the article will infer from the Bauer section that he's a proponent. Encouraging readers to infer something that is quite false is not much better than just writing something false, as I see it. At any rate, if one of our major scholarly sources for "New antisemitism" refuses to call it that because he doesn't think it's new, and thinks the concept is therefore false, doesn't this support Ashley's proposal to move this article to Antisemitism since 1945? With a subsection on the concept of a "new antisemitism"? And finally, I have to say this is just a very strange conversation we're having. Imagine that I just blithely conceded that a major source for the Israeli apartheid analogy article doesn't think "apartheid" is a good analogy for the practices in question; imagine that I then told you that "he's talking about the exact same phenomenon, and he agrees it's segregationist, he just doesn't think it's like apartheid"; imagine that I said to you, "Jay, I'm not sure why you say we've presented him as a proponent – we don't use that word." If you can imagine all this, you'll have some notion of my surprise here.--G-Dett (talk) 00:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we don't need to remove Bauer now that we have a link from him to "new antisemitism": we should rewrite the section around that source rather than removing it. —Ashley Y 03:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating, so not only has most of this article been artificial synthesis of various sources that aren't really talking to one another, but at least one of the sources is basically being portrayed in the article as as part of a synthesis that says the opposite of what he actually writes. In any case, this quote is more relevant to the article and it seems to come from an actually published source (though it doesn't seem to meet WP:RS based on what's available at that website, but perhaps there is an editorial statement somewhere for this since it is called a "Review"). ("About AIJAC" and "The Review" are dead links ATM). csloat (talk) 04:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The link to the Review is easily enough found, for anyone interested in actually finding it. Here it is. And Csloat, you've been asked before to stop continually stating your incorrect opinions as facts. This article quite accurately represents Bauer's views about New Antisemitism. Please stop soapboxing. Thanks! Jayjg ^(talk) 01:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Huh? You're the one who posted the quotation; I was comparing the quotation to what the article said. It appears to me that your understanding of the quotation is incorrect, if you believe that. Bauer says "Western antisemitism is not new. This concept of “New Antisemitism” is, I think, quite false." You posted that quotation, not me. Please stop accusing me of some kind of nefarious manipulation. Have you read this page? It could save you a lot of trouble around here to do so, and to pay heed to what it advises. By the way, thanks for the link to the Review; the link you provided previously led to dead links when I tried to find an editorial policy. There still doesn't seem to be one. csloat (talk) 01:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Please read the entire quote in context. Bauer makes it clear that what he finds false is the appellation "New", since he thinks it's not New at all. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The Bauer section should be based on this source, and any others where he discusses "new antisemitism". I agree that he is saying that what is called "new antisemitism" is antisemitism but not new. —Ashley Y 04:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to get this straight.

1. Yehuda Bauer is an expert on the subject of this article, which is antisemitism, and the particular focus of the article is a modern development in antisemitism described in this way:"New antisemitism is the concept that a new form of antisemitism is on the rise in the 21st century, emanating simultaneously from the left, the right, and fundamentalist Islam, and tending to manifest itself as opposition to Zionism and the State of Israel."
2. Yehuda Bauer has written an article in which he describes, discusses and gives his views on this very subject.
3. Ashley Y, G-Dett, and csloat conclude that Yehuda Bauer does not belong as a source in the article.

No. 3 is just a joke....right? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

If it's a joke, you're the one telling it. Once I saw the quote that Jay brought forward, I wrote, and I quote, "this quote is more relevant to the article." Sourcing may still be a problem - I'm not sure - but it's certainly better than the unpublished stuff that is on the page currently, which doesn't actually talk about "new antisemitism." Now we have Bauer's position on the "new antisemitism" theory - he believes it is "quite false" - and it should probably be in the article. csloat (talk) 19:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, Bauer's position should be correctly represented in the article; and it is pleasant to find that we agree on something. What you call "the unpublished stuff" clearly has been published, even if only on the web. I think that the views of such a well established expert in the field could be considered acceptable for use in the article even in that form. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

What I call the "unpublished stuff" is not published in any reliable source so it shouldn't be used here. "The web" is not a reliable source per se. In any case, it doesn't mention "new antisemitism" either, so it doesn't belong here for that reason alone. There are questions about the other source too but it is better than a paper someone threw up on a web page. csloat (talk) 20:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the issue is, "New anti-Semitism" refers to two different things. First, it refers to actual human acts( when someone says "that is an example of the new AS," they are referring to something someone said or did); second, it refers to a particular way of talking about such acts. Bauer is saying that (1) exists, but that (2) is not the best way to describe or understand it. So Bauer is a proponent of attempts to document and understand different forms of anti-Semitism, including forms mentioned in this article, but he is a critic of those who would say these forms are new in any noteworthy sense. Since Bauer has a view about the acts (1) and about the theory (2), it seems obvious that he shouls be included in the article. We just need to be clear to distinguish between the concept of the new anti-Semitism, versus actual acts that some people lable as examples of the new anti-Semitism. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

We need to rewrite the Bauer section based on sources that actually discuss "new antisemitism". The present section is based on an article that does not mention the concept. —Ashley Y 04:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe if we changed the title.

In the lead, we have "New antisemitism is ... a new form of antisemitism ... tending to manifest itself as opposition to Zionism and the State of Israel." Maybe we should go at this from another angle, and title the article "Opposition to Zionism and Israel as antisemitism". This focuses the article on the versions of "new antisemitism" which involve Israel-related disputes. That's a reasonably coherent subject. Right now, we're lost trying to connect up Forster and Epstein from the 1970s (from the innocent days when "Jesus Christ, Superstar" was seen as "new antisemitism) to the issues of today when areas of Europe are acquiring sizable Islamic populations. It's not working. --John Nagle (talk) 07:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

You could call it Anti-Zionism and Antisemitism.

BTW check out [[39]] for an example of new antisemitism.

Telaviv1 (talk) 07:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The words "new antisemitism" don't even appear on that page. As for changing the name of this page, something like antisemitism since 1945 makes more sense to me than anti-Zionism and anti-semitism. csloat (talk) 15:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm opposed to a name change. "New antisemitism" is the common term for this phenomenon and altering the name is just going to obfuscate the issues. Gatoclass (talk) 17:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem is that there is no agreement on what "this phenomenon" is when we call it "new antisemitism." We have different concepts going back to the 1960s among writers who don't cite each other at all. What specific issues do you feel would get "obfuscated" if we call this "antisemitism since 1945" or something like that? csloat (talk) 17:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The whole concept of there being any such thing, which some people vociferously maintain. There are many terms that admit of differing definitions, even failing to acknowledge each other completely. It's fine to have a refutation of the concept in the article, not fine to endorse the refutation by changing the name to something that would only serve to confuse a reader looking for an examination of this topic. IronDuke 02:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Which word in the phrase "antisemitism since 1945" do you find confusing? It's quite precise and it leaves little room for confusion about what falls inside or outside the set. Meanwhile, I find the phrase "new antisemitism" extremely confusing, especially given the diversity of views on it. To the point where we have an editor who expects to be taken seriously actually claiming that an article which concludes that "new antisemitism" is a "false" concept actually supports the thesis of a "new antisemitism." It's extremely confusing, especially coupled with the severe WP:SYN problem in the so-called history of the notion offered by this article. This article is so weak in part because the title is confusing, I think. csloat (talk) 03:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Less confusing than mostly useless -- and when did I say I would be confused by it? From your post, it appears you who are confused. If this article "concludes" anything, it's badly in want of more editing, BTW, if I haven't confused you further. Honestly, csloat, just take it to AfD if you hate the article (the way in which it failed to pass AfD might be edifying). Changing the title isn't going to happen, and you know this already, I am quite certain. WP:SOFIXITIronDuke 03:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Changing this to "antisemitism since 1945" would be as inopportune as changing Islamophobia to "anti-Muslim sentiment since 1945" would be. There's two different concepts. One is a pair of bona fide anti-Jewish and anti-Islamic realities; the other is a more nebulous pair of concepts which some people swear by (one, the other or both), some people think are pure bunkum masking hidden agendas (one, the other, or both), and some eminently sane people don't think much about at all (one, the other or--for the most mentally sound, both). There's not going to be a coherence to the article, because it's a loose, nebulous concept which not everyone agrees even exists, or even among those who do, do not agree with each other (and having your own version different than the other guy's helps sell books). So again, let's just lay out the notable versions of the theory, the notable versions of its opponents, and retire to the pub and sing Kumbaya in Aramaic. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 04:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we could go for both articles rather than moving. But there's a certain amount of content here that belongs there, not here, and some that belongs in both. —Ashley Y 05:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Or the "new antisemitism" dispute/debate/thesis/idea could be a subheading under antisemitism since 1945. Whatever; I didn't think the name change suggestion would be so controversial as Ironduke implies (and it wasn't my suggestion to begin with). Ironduke, you said that the title "antisemitism since 1945" would be confusing, so I asked you what would be confusing about it. I do find "new antisemitism" confusing; much of the "logic" behind the thesis appears imprecise (to be generous). I explained why I think it was more likely to confuse readers than the other title suggested; I'm not sure why you responded by telling me I'm confused. And no, I'm not planning to afd it, and I never said I "hate" it; I said it was weak. And I never said it concluded anything; what I said was the concept was so confusing that we have people claiming that a quotation that demonstrably and obviously says the concept is false actually concludes that it does exist. In other words, I cited another editor's confusing statements as evidence for my claim that the current title creates more confusion than the proposed title would. csloat (talk) 06:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the article is basically too long and spends too much space on he says-she says. the new antismeitism is basically a side show of antisemitism not a replacement. Just because this [40] doesn't mention antisemitism doesn't mean it isn't an example of it.

Telaviv1 (talk) 06:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The main sources used here (Brian Klug, Norman Finkelstein, Bernard Lewis, Yehuda Bauer, Tariq Ali, etc.) seem to function, in the context of this article, as primary sources, and real secondary sources may be lacking. In addition, the article is a quote farm.

Also, in support of Telaviv1's comment above, the first sentence of the introduction to the article says: "New antisemitism is the concept that a new form of antisemitism is on the rise in the 21st century..." New Antisemitism is a topic in the larger subject of Antisemitism, and it can not logically be discussed separately from that. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

That's incorrect, as has been established (over and over) in the discussion above. The relationship between "new antisemitism" and "antisemitism" is a lot less clear than that. csloat (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

csloat, that is grulli nonsense. Anyone who has taken even a casual look at the article would have noticed that it has the antisemitism template. The subject of the article is antisemitism. What is at question is if the particular claims of New Antisemitism are correct. But correct, or not, it is still a topic in the category of antisemitism. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

To badly paraphrase the aphorism, putting a template on a pig doesn't make it less of a pig. The template itself is a mess, that's another story we will hopefully be able to fix soon. If the topic of this article is "antisemitism" then it should be deleted and merged to this article as a subsection. Why haven't you started the AfD yet if you feel so strongly about this point? csloat (talk) 19:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC) Also, what did you mean by "grulli" nonsense? csloat (talk) 19:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not particularly interested in what you think should be done to the article, but feel free to blab on as much as you like. It has become rather amusing. The fact remains that New Antisemitism is a topic in the category of Antisemitism, if you like that or not. I never suggested an AfD for this article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You're the one who claims this is a subset of another article; as I said, and have shown in detailed discussion earlier, the relationship is much more complicated than that. Please be civil in the future (see WP:CIV for details). csloat (talk) 21:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No. I said New Antisemitism is a topic in the category of Antisemitism, which is the category covered by the antisemitism template. Capiche? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

And I said it's not that simple. Nu? csloat (talk) 22:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Your comments, however, aren't particularly relevant. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh but they are. Thanks anyway for your input. csloat (talk) 03:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

csloat, I asked if you understood my explanation of my viewpoint, not if you agree. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

yes, I had a similar question for you. csloat (talk) 14:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I always said that I understand you viewpoint, but do not agree. On the other hand, I am not sure if you misunderstand what I have said, or if it is really your intention to sound like a Bozo [41]. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

So now it's come to pure name calling without even a hint of an argument; interesting. You may find this instructive. Have a good read; in the meantime, I've lost my appetite for this sort of exchange, so you'll forgive me if I withdraw at this point. csloat (talk) 14:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You still have not answered my question. I have asked you to say if you understand the explanation of my viewpoint. I have not asked if you agree. Could you just say if you understand? I really do not think that is asking for something that is difficult to say. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

David Duke hardly seems an example of "new antisemitism" --unless if what we mean by new is that todays KlanKlowns hide their fugliness with plastic surgery enhancements rather than throwing used laundry items over their heads like they did in the olden times. (hey lady, here's yer hood back!) Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 14:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

David Duke is not new but the lady linking to him is. Its his friends who are new. Telaviv1 (talk) 11:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Morons making friends with the David Dukes of the world is not new. KKKers 100 years ago made new friends with morons too. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 14:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The far right making common cause with Arabs is pretty new, isn't it? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, Jay? The Lebanese Falange was founded, with aid and inspiration from Franco and Mussolini, in 1936. The Rashid coup, with desultory co-operation from the Luftwaffe and Nazi intelligence, took place in 1941. I don't need to tell you about the Mufti's activities from 1939-45. The Ba'ath movements were founded in the 1940s and 1950s. What in blazes are you talking about? <eleland/talkedits> 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Although we don't have an article on antisemitism since 1945 we do have History of antisemitism and some material from here could be migrated there to the benefit of both articles. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

tangentially related to this, boodles, i'm not entirely sure your most recent reversion to the article didn't throw out a tiny baby within a lot of bathwater. there was indeed an excessive amount of verbiage devoted to the concept raised, but it wasn't actually OR in that it quoted an external source's opinion/research, which, if not represented elsewhere in the article is probably worth noting in concise form. anyway, when/if i get a minute i'll see whether it is indeed not a repetition of something else in the article and if not will make an attempt to make it a proportional addition, if nobody objects. Gzuckier (talk) 17:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem, as long as it is actually about "new antisemitism" and not tangentially related OR/OR Synth. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 19:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Oddly enought, Chip Berlet himself says he's talking about New antisemitism, and has said so on the Talk: page of this very article.Talk:New_anti-Semitism/archive_15#Data_points_on_usage Jayjg ^(talk) 00:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't doubt that he said that on a talk page. But if there is a reliably sourced work by him (or anyone else) demonstrating that there is a trend on the left to adopt in a collborative fashion neo-fascist/far right/nazi anti-semitic viewpoints, and if this is discussed as an example of "new antisemitism" I'd be happy to see it. Indeed, I'd be happy to look at an article that demonstrates this phenomenon of collaboration/fascist anti-semitism seeping into the left even without it being described as NAS. The source that was in the article was pretty flimsy; gave a single example of some dude in Podunk saying something or other. Hardly demonstrated a trend (and if there is such a demonstrable trend (with sources) , it should get into WP. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 14:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Boodlesthecat, I may not quite understand what you are looking for, but perhaps the well respected Matthias Küntzel would be such a source: [42] [43][44]. The qualifying word "collaborative", that you use, rather surprises me. It is quite enough that there as been a convergence (without an organized conspiracy) to satisfy the premise of New Antisemitism. Nevertheless, while living in Italy, I often came across the claim that after WW2 many fascists became communists. But (for the purpose of the article) that is just my OR. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Umm. There i think we disagree, Bood; hopefully my painfully executed edits of the berlet stuff will make it clear. i see in the two references for the stuff one which emphasizes the seepage of fascist ideation in general into the left, but the other, less academic, piece specifically and explicitly identifying the period of joint anti-Reagan-ism of the far right and far left as the point where antisemitic conspiracy theory moved from the farright into the left, and quickly became entrenched by the rise of the "jewish lobby" concept during GWI. He nowhere uses the phrase new antisemitism, however he is clearly speaking of antisemitism, and of a new variant; i.e. it's appearance among "progressives". which is entirely what this is about. on a side note, having gone over the article in some detail finally, it really is kind of a mess.... but i've learned that's part of wikipedia's "charm" for this kind of topic. we await a charismatic leader who will show us a simple solution and identify those responsible for the current problems, so that under his/her strong leadership we may eliminate them and move forward into a bright future. (i hope at least somebody thought that was funny; or at very least identified it as relevant satire)Gzuckier (talk) 20:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Reverted good faith edit--it's simply waaaay too much of a stretch. Even this article needs some boundaries, and inserting articles from extremely minor pubs that are arguing about some supposed (and woefully unsubstantiated by hard facts) cosmic confluence of left and right just seems beyond those boundaries. Berlet's articles are clearly directed at one of what seems to be his regular targets, the love em or hate em conspiracy peoples, of whom he has styled himself, it appears as an expert and as a journalistic demolisher of. As well, it is, as you correctly describe, about his purported theory of "seepage of fascist ideation in general into the left" (of which, unless I'm blind, he supplies no credible evidence for. All well and good, but a)these are minor pubs, and b) decidedly peripheral to this article, which is about a specific concept. In a nutshell--off topic, no palpable evidence, fringy publications. Even I need more beef than that. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 00:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Boodles on this ... we should really avoid original research in this article. Things are contentious enough with the sources that are actually clear about what they are talking about; using such sources (particularly poorly sourced ones like this) does not help (even if the author is also a wikipedia editor; in fact, if the author is a wikipedia editor, I wonder if there are vanity issues with this as well). csloat (talk) 14:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, i bow to the collected wisdom of wikipedia. that being how it works. just to clear up what appears to be a misconception, although it may be mine, i haven't got any connection with berlet or any of the stuff under discussion, i just thought there might be a salvagable datum in there. so it's not OR on my part, and certainly not a vanity edit. other than my vanity in my vast intellectual powers. i got no particular axe to grind. Gzuckier (talk) 14:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I didn't mean vanity on your part of course :) csloat (talk) 15:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

See, TelAviv, I know you think that your link to the David Duke thing is an excellent example of "New antisemitism" and the kind of thing that should be included in an article on "new antisemitism." But it's actually a perfect example of why this type of original research should not be admitted. Above, G-Dett wrote,

Perhaps I can clarify the point by providing a very precise analogue, a "concept" closely parallel to NAS, and one that I happen to endorse, and yet still feel is more of a popular concept than a scholarly one. There is currently no article on Neo-McCarthyism, but the available source material on it is comparable to that for NAS, and would certainly support it. After 9-11, many left-leaning popular sources began discussing "neo-McCarthyism" with regards to the debate about Israel-Palestine. They refer to things like Campus Watch's collection of "dossiers" on professors critical of U.S. and Israeli policies, the increasingly promiscuous use of "antisemite" as an epithet, the organized campaigns to deny tenure to pro-Palestinian professors, Congressional bills proposing to make Middle East studies centers in U.S. universities subject to political oversight, and so on. I happen to think "neo-McCarthyism" is a pretty apt moniker for the sort of things it's been used to describe.

Now in my personal opinion, which is of course not an acceptable basis for editing articles, the link you've posted is a much better example of "neo-McCarthyism" than "new antisemitism." Somebody found an article critical of Israel on a website she didn't recognize, and forwarded a link to an University-hosted antiZionist mailing list. It turned out the website was racist and hateful. The woman was kicked off the list by her University, pilloried by pro-Israel bloggers, and received death threats. A dumb mistake on her part, and her apology was necessary, but by my personal reading the real story here is censorship by the university and outrageous libels by the self-appointed Internet watchdogs - a classic case of neo-McCarthyism.

Of course, we both realize that my own personal reading of this story is irrelevant, and it would be grossly inappropriate for me to add information about this case to an article Neo-McCarthyism or McCarthyism. Does not the same logic apply to your personal reading of this story as being "new antisemitism" related? <eleland/talkedits> 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course we should, as the Bible instructs, always WP:AGF, but there's no evidence one way or another that her post was innocent or not (at best it's kinda dumb, and doesn't reflect too well on the academic skills of an edumacated college lecturerator). Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 18:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Eleand: most of McCarthy's victims were Jews. My father worked in the theatre and had recordings of the meetings of committee for unamerican activities. He knew people affected by it. Some migrated to Israel. The mcCarthyism here is in your attempt to deny me the right to defend myself against ethnically motivated prejeudice by accusing me of "Zionism". David Duke and his ilk murdered my grandmother and aunt while people like yourself accused my parents of fantasizing about antisemitism and having ulterior motives. In my opinoin your opposition to the term new-atnisemitism derives from an implicit admission of guilt: if the term is real then you are an anti-semite and that is what you really object to.

Telaviv1 (talk) 06:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

OK now calm down, a little civility. Actually, Tail Gunner Joe is laughing in his room in Hell--he woulda locked the both of ya up. Old joke--A cop on horseback gallops through a 1950s left wing rally, swinging his club and busting heads. One guy pleadingly protests to the cop, "No, no, please, don't beat me, I'm an anti-communist!" The cops swings his club over the poor guys head snarling, "I don't give a damn what kind of communist you are!" Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 06:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Alternative images

This has a couple of placard-at-a-protest images that are specifically referred to as "new Antisemitism". —Ashley Y 06:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

the existing one is a fine illustration. no need to change it. Telaviv1 (talk) 11:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No reason why they can't both be used. In fact, they both should be. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Why should we include both images?--G-Dett (talk) 20:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The advantage of the one Ashley proposed is that it actually somewhat reliably sourced. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 22:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

True, though it has a lot of the other problems of the zombietime image - there is no indication of where the sign was held, whether it represented a significant number of protestors or a single kook, how other protesters confronted the kook if it was, etc, etc, etc. That said, I agree it's still preferable to the zombie image (though it's only slightly closer to being a RS; isn't there an actual edited magazine or, better, refereed journal that talks about this stuff?) csloat (talk) 23:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Tut tut, csloat, please remember, we're not going to be imposing any invented policies on this page, or the images on it. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Please remember we're not going to engage in juvenile non sequiturs. Thanks! csloat (talk) 03:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Assuming there's no photoshopping magic going on, it appears that there is at least two kooks. A 200% increase over Zombie's kook tally. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 23:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you really think there are only "two kooks" around with these kinds of views? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No there's countless kooks with these views. But the number of such kooks who are dumb enough to wheedle their way into lefty demos (where there is generally little tolerance for such things since they tend to be seen as provocateurs and often get a swift boot out) is a much smaller sample; and those lasting long enough to get photographed a smaller sample still. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 05:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Who cares what kinds of views they have? The important thing is that we can say who it is that identifies them as something called "new Antisemitism". —Ashley Y 05:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there some evidence that these particular kooks were at the same protest as the zombie kook? I was hard pressed to find any evidence of where they were at all. csloat (talk) 03:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

They got the second image, and I believe the first, from Zombie's own website. Different protest, though, related to the 2006 Lebanon war I believe. <eleland/talkedits> 18:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there any problem with replacing the current image, which has a description tagged as "original research", with this image which is part of an academic article? Shii (tock) 23:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that the issue has been through mediation [45]. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, it looks like Jayjg is the only person opposing the removal of the image currently on the page. Is that right? Shii (tock) 18:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I oppose removing it. There are, as I recall, others also opposed. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I support removal of the image. Shall we start a formal !vote at this time? The last time this was discussed it appeared the consensus was overwhelmingly for removal, but the image stayed up. csloat (talk) 20:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me like the primary objection to removing the current image is that it is a good representation of "new antisemitism". I would argue that the image linked above, which is from the same source and same protest, is by all standards a better representation. It's less ambiguous and benefits from its choice by an academic source. Malcolm, if you disagree, would you care to elaborate? Shii (tock) 20:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Instead my elaborating what has been discussed extensivly, perhaps you could read previous discussion, much of which is in the archives. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

So you're withdrawing your objection? For the record, I'm not interested in talking points like "this is old news, the article is perfect now." It is my opinion that an image with a citation is better than an image without a citation no matter what sort of elaborate discussions may have happened in the past. Shii (tock) 20:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Where did I say my position has changed? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

If anyone can provide a reason why an image lacking citations is better than an image with citations, please let me know now. Otherwise I will swap ou the images on December 26. Shii (tock) 16:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

SPLC report

Some interesting stuff in a recent SPLC report. although none actually describes NAS by name, and is probably not usable. I like the Youtube video of the Imam Abdul Alim Musa fella who appears top be speaking to a crowd of....no one? the camera person? What caught my eye (after being alerted to this report via a notice in MuzzleWatch) was the section "On an Oregon university campus, a left-wing discussion group takes a giant leap to the extreme right" (you have to scroll in the SPLC report to it). If Muzzlewatch was highlighting this report with a teaser of "we at Muzzlewatch consider real anti-Semites are using the muzzling argument to defend their right to be loved by the left" I thought there might be some real beef per discussion here about left/right "converegence" NAS. Though SPLC reports, regarding the left group embracing anti-semitism in question that "fewer than 10 people (besides reporters and monitors) usually attend the group's weekly meetings." Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 16:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

OR problem with Wistrich quote?

“ Historian Robert Wistrich addressed the issue in a 1984 lecture delivered in the home of Israeli President Chaim Herzog, in which he argued that a "new anti-Semitic anti-Zionism" was emerging, distinguishing features of which were the equation of Zionism with Nazism and the belief that Zionists had actively collaborated with Nazis during World War II. He argued that such claims were prevalent in the Soviet Union, but added that similar rhetoric had been taken up by a part of the radical Left, particularly Trotskyist groups in Western Europe and America.[13] ”

I think the above section should be removed from the article. He doesn't talk about a phenomenon called "new antisemitism"; he is talking about "new anti-Zionism," which, though perhaps related, is something different. If he doesn't make the connection or state in his lecture that this new antizionism is also a new kind of antisemitism, I'm not sure Wikipedia can make that connection. csloat (talk) 18:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

How do you think the topics are different? How would you relate that to the comments Wistrich makes here? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Wistrich doesn't mention "new antisemitism" in that interview either. As far as how they are different, "anti-Zionism" involves opposition to Zionism (an international political movement), whereas "anti-semitism" involves opposition to (and usually discrimination against) Jews (members of the Jewish people). At least, that is my understanding of the two terms. csloat (talk) 00:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

But he doesn't refer simply to "anti-Zionism", he refers specifically to "new anti-Semitic anti-Zionism", which he sees as different from earlier anti-Zionism. And, of course, "New antisemitism" is the concept of anti-Zionism as a manifestation of, or a mask for, antisemitism. I'm not seeing a difference between the phenomenon he is describing and the phenomenon described in this article. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

What's "new" in his comment is the anti-Zionism, not the anti-semitism. He's not talking about a new antisemitism. I suspect he would argue similarly to Bauer that you are just looking at plain old anti-semitism. But my suspicions as well as yours are original research until we have reliable sources confirming them. csloat (talk) 00:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

What original research? I do not see any problem. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 01:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

How is the "anti-Zionism" part new? I quote from the lede of this article: "Proponents of the concept argue that anti-Zionism, anti-Americanism, anti-globalization, third worldism, and demonization of Israel or double standards applied to its conduct may be linked to antisemitism, or constitute disguised antisemitism." (emphasis mine). Jayjg ^(talk) 01:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You're WP:SYNTHesizing Wistrich's phrase "new anti-Semitic anti-Zionism" with the definition in the lede. —Ashley Y 02:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's that difficult to tease out what Wistrich is getting at. But just in case it is, here he is in a Guardian article on the very subject of NAS.

But Robert Wistrich, director of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem's international centre for the study of anti-semitism, says human rights is merely a cover. "On the left we see a trend to believing there is a worldwide conspiracy in which Jews and Zionists are implicated," he said. "You have a link of money, Jews, America, world domination, globalisation. The notion that the Jews are a superpower that controls America is both a classic and revamped form of anti-semitism. The most interesting phenomenon is the singling out and demonisation of the state of Israel, that brands it as a Nazi-like state or accuses it of genocide. This kind of discourse is often put forward under the banner of human rights. This is new." [46]

IronDuke 02:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This is better. —Ashley Y 02:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree; much better in terms of OR but also more clear and explanatory. csloat (talk) 03:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

trolling from anon ip + established user

An anon ip (which may be the same as Malcolm Schosha (talk · contribs)) is revert warring over the Tariq Ali paragraph. Again. The discussion which took place months ago -- it's right here above -- clearly settled the matter; continued efforts to remove this material without discussion are either trolling and/or vandalism. csloat (talk) 20:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Please review WP:no personal attacks and WP:civility.

In my view, since Tariq Ali is not a reliable source on the subject of any aspect of antisemitism, and therefore he does not belong in the article. That issue was not resolved. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Skimming through the section noted by csloat above, it seems that you held one opinion, and a good dozen+ held another opinion. Seems resolved to me. Tarc (talk) 23:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Tark, please refer to WP:reliable sources, which says

Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.

Notice it says "trustworthy or authoritative "in relation to the subject at hand". Although Tariq Ali is certainly notable, and a reliable source for some subjects, it was never shown that he is an accepted reliable source for any aspect of antisemitism; and this article is about a particular aspect of antisemitism. Moreover there are notable reliable sources who are equally critical of New-Antisemitism, so there is no real need for that source to create balance. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

To bring it back to my earlier point, even if other editors disagree with my edit, calling that "trolling" violates WP:no personal attacks, and WP:civility. That is why I filed a civility complaint against Commodore Sloat. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Part of WP:CIV says This policy is not a weapon to be used against other contributors. I think focusing on the edit and not the perceived level of civility of other editors would be more helpful.Gerardw (talk) 01:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Describing edits you disagree with as "trolling" is a serious issue, and a violation of both WP:CIV and WP:NPA. This is not an issue to be swept under the rug. As for Malcolm's edit, he raises a reasonable point; what makes Ali qualified to comment on antisemitism? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)