Talk:New antisemitism

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)

Do you even know what non sequitur means?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:43, 30 December 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 [1]. 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)

A number of people have supported retention of the so-called "Zombietime" image over a period of several years, including me. It is not just one or two people. This image illustrates the subject of the article very well (as does the more recently added image.) I notice that the photo (as it appears in the article) has become much smaller than it used to be when it was really controversial. If that was supposed to be a compromise, it seems like a reasonable one. 6SJ7 (talk) 17:19, 29 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)

Great! We can close this discussion now, then. Shii (tock) 04:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The image has citations, there has been incredibly long negotiations on its removal, with the consensus not to remove there being no consensus to remove. Please don't make edit that you know is both contested and contentious. There's no reason why both images can't be included, and now they are. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Jay, could you please remind everyone of when we reached a consensus not to remove the image? My recollection of last year's extensive discussion on the matter is somewhat different. CJCurrie (talk) 02:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I should have worded it slightly differently. There was no consensus to remove. All fixed. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's very polite for you to come rushing into the article only after I am forced to conclude that nobody has any comments. That being said, I cannot bring myself to care enough to remove your image, since it's not like it's irrelevant to the article. Shii (tock) 07:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I am not entirely knowledgeable on the concept of this article. That being said, the subject has apparentyl been discussed at length by many reliable sources. I see no reason why we can't have both, yours and the other. They both illustrate the concept well IMHO. Khoikhoi 06:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

There's a severe undue weight problem with have two images like this on the page. One of them needs to go. Unless we want to rewrite the article to say that "new antisemitism" is a phenomenon associated mostly with a single protest in California in 2003? csloat (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't really been involved in any of this in almost a couple of years now but I have to say that I am kinda confused that people are still trying to find ways of getting rid of the image. Back in my day when I was just a handsome young buck it was insisted (rather strangely) that using the image somehow counted as a copyright violation because we didn't have the permission of the guy who created the poster. Now people are bringing up undue weight and even hinting that the image was photoshoped. Come on guys can't we move on to something else like sports or star wars articles?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that yet another image has been added that's apparently showing the exact same thing. The good news is, it's closer to a reliable source; the bad news is now there are two such images in the section creating an undue weight problem. Ideally we should get rid of the image without the reliable source, but because a few editors have such an emotional attachment to that particular image it's probably better to remove the newer one. csloat (talk) 05:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, one image could somehow be considered as legitimate criticism (by blind hateful people) as it is directed at Israel. The other image is an open and shut case of antisemitism without a standing ground even for the raging anti-Zionist. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

My take is as follows:

• The Zombietime image has been contentious since it was added to the article's lede section in 2006, and remains contentious now. There has never been a consensus to keep or remove the image, although a survey taken about a year ago showed majority support for either moving or deleting it. Under normal circumstances, any image this contentious among editors would have been removed long ago.
• The Zombietime image was, in fact, removed from the article lede several months ago as the result of mediation. Just before this process ended, Jayjg proposed that the image be moved to its current location. My recollection is that he described this as a compromise, although I cannot remember any substantive discussion having taken place on the matter after he raised the issue.
• I have argued elsewhere that the Zombietime image is unsuitable for this encyclopedic project. For the purposes of this discussion, it should be sufficient to note that the image, while clearly anti-Semitic, has not been cited as an instance of "new antisemitism" by any credible source apart from a passing reference in a marginally notable Santa Cruz local.
• Given that the "new" image covers basically the same ground as Zombietime, with the added bonus of being cited to a credible source, I cannot understand why some editors remain adamant that Zombietime not at last be discarded. Commodore Sloat is correct that having both images presents a problem of undue weight, and I can't imagine why anyone would want to keep a poorly cited image over a well-cited one. CJCurrie (talk) 02:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Not even close CJCurrie. That image epitomizes everything wrong in the anti-Zionist discourse and is clearly encyclopedic in value even if several editors believe it too be offensive. Wikipedia is not censored. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I am in full agreement with Jaakobou. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The Zombietime image represents what some people consider "new antisemitism" to be, but it doesn't even come close to capturing the debate around the concept. This is why it was unsuitable for the lede ... but as that particular dispute is no longer active, there's no need to go over these points again now.

The Zombietime image is unsuitable for the article because it hasn't been described as a manifestation of "new antisemitism" by credible sources (with the exception of the aforementioned passing reference in the Santa Cruz local). Given that the "new" image covers basically the same ground, and is properly sourced, I can't see why some posters are still opposed to Zombietime's long-overdue removal.

I'll leave it for other contributors to decide if Jaakobou and Malcolm Schosha are approaching this dispute in a spirit of objectivity. CJCurrie (talk) 17:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear CJCurrie,

1. Is there any doubt that the image indeed represents anti-semitsm?
2. See my comment from 18:25, 30 December 2008.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

1. Not to my mind, but that isn't the point. "New antisemitism" is a disputed concept, and is not an equivalent term to "contemporary anti-Semitism" (the reality of which no-one should dispute).
2. I still don't see a compelling need to include both images, and I can't understand why anyone would prefer a poorly-sourced image to a well-sourced one when the content is more-or-less identical. CJCurrie (talk) 21:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Heyo CJCurrie,

Since you brought up the issue of objectivity, I'm a bit at odds with the statement that "to [your] mind" the image does not represent antisemitism. I don't mean to offend, but perhaps you should raise this picture on village pump or something to see if the community sees eye to eye with this belief (I would find it surprising but I'm willing to test this theory). Keep me updated (link me to the thread once you open it).

p.s. please re-read my comment from 18:25, 30 December 2008. It clarifies your concerns.

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks like what cjcurrie said was the opposite -- that to his mind, there is no doubt that the image represents antisemitism. I really think his point #2 is important here, that we don't need two images and of the two we should prefer the one with a source. And it really does create an undue weight problem to have two images allegedly from a single protest in 2003. csloat (talk) 23:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Jaakobou: "Is there any doubt that the image indeed represents anti-semitsm [sic]?" Me: "Not to my mind.". In other words, I was in fact saying that the image was anti-Semitic. I'm glad that Commodore Sloat got it right, at least. CJCurrie (talk) 01:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe this has been said before, but one problem with the long-standing image is that it is hard to tell exactly what themes it is promoting. I did not realize for several months, for instance, that the main devil character is labeled "Capitalist Whiteman." The antisemitic themes are clear enough, but the idea that it is "anti-American" as our caption says is somewhat less clear, along with what other messages it had in mind. Ultimately what I see is a classic assertion that "Zionist pigs" are behind U.S. war efforts, and secondly that all of this is somehow for the money. However the clarity of even those messages seems to have been sacrificed for maximum shock value. Considering we're writing an encyclopedia rather than an original dissertation, I think this is at least among the reasons why many people have never been so happy with its presence in this article. The other photo by contrast quite clearly represents one of the major themes of discussion, which for that matter is probably why a media outlet would find it more useful. Mackan79 (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Apologies CJCurrie for the misunderstanding. Topic-wise, one of the images is a perfect imagery for the topic while the other is clearly not perfect. I believe there is room for the better one at the top while the other one can be placed at a location where people object the "antisemitic" smears and claim their words to fall as (so called) legitimate criticism. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Having both images creates an undue weight problem since it appears as if "new antisemitism" is mostly something that occurred at a single protest in 2003. Do we really want to promote this particular protest so vociferously? And, of course, putting one image "at the top" is unacceptable (that was established during mediation). It really doesn't make sense to promote a sourceless image when we have a sourced one. csloat (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Jaakobou, do you mean to say that the Zombietime image is perfect, whereas the other is not? I think you are supporting the Zombietime image, but some of your comments almost seem to go the other way. Apologies if I misread you, but the problem is that when an image is antisemitic "even for the raging anti-Zionist," then this suggests it is an illustration of "old antisemitism," not the "New Antisemitism." That is one of the primary complaints with the image, that to illustrate "New Antisemitism" with an uncontroversially and classically antisemitic image is to misrepresent the thesis, plus to do a poor job of explaining it to someone who wants to know what the theory of New Antisemitism was created to describe.

To be honest, though, I think that many of us are over-confident in our analysis. Last night I noticed a conflict on AN/I over this page, where an African American editor is arguing that a page on Stereotypes of Jews should exist in the model of Stereotypes of African Americans. Anyone looking at the page by itself would immediately conclude that it was the effort of antisemites, but if you see the background, then the problem is much more complex. In this image, we have what is apparently an African American holding a poster with a demonic figure labeled "Capitalist Whiteman," in front of other figures labeled "Counterfeit Jews." When I google "Counterfeit Jews," the second hit I get confirms that whatever this theme refers to, it is not what you would initially expect, or certainly what is generally referred to as the "New Antisemitism." Perhaps this has also been discussed earlier, but in my view it suggests that the image is not exactly a perfect representation of any of the issues in this article.

(added) Incidentally, one issue that was raised earlier is the fact that this isn't just a poster, but that it was shown at a rally, and that this reflects the theme of "overt antisemitism being accepted in liberal crowds." However, anyone unfamiliar with U.S. racial tensions likely would not realize that even this is complicated when you are talking about a sign carried by an African American, representing African American themes. This goes directly to the U.S. history of excluding blacks from schools, government, and other settings; that issue is currently being discussed frankly with the Rod Blagojevich scandal, and Blagojevich's choice to appoint an African American senator under the theory that despite Blagojevich's alleged corruption in the appointment process, it would be impossible for Senate Democrats to block what would be the only African American senator from entering the building to take his seat. See for instance this piece or the last paragraph of this. It's a difficult point to discuss adequately, but I would be surprised if these were not considerations of any sources that considered running this picture as an example of New Antisemitism. Mackan79 (talk) 08:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

An interesting point about the history of Blacks in the U.S. but I'm not sure it works against our general assessment of the image. The image certainly conveys the issue better than the other image and is more encyclopedic as well. Only problem remains that the source could be of higher quality but we don't replace one reliable image with a somewhat confusing one (just calling Israel 'nazis' is not quite the same as using the term 'pigs' and making an allegory towards money and global domination). If there was an image of equal encyclopedic value, I would certainly support a replacement, but currently there just isn't. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The reason it works against our analysis is that, on looking into it, the image doesn't quite convey what readers will think. Since the "Capitalist Whiteman" label isn't legible, I can only assume that readers will think as I did that the demonic figure is presented as the leader of the Israeli figures in the background, e.g., that this is the classic demonic caricature of a Jew. To analyze the image without showing or acknowledging this is to present a distorted view. I think it's worth pointing out also that there is a fair amount of discussion about tension between African Americans and Jews in the U.S., as there is between most minorities, but these generally aren't included as the "New antisemitism."

It seems you're also coming at this with a different idea of what is the perfect image, though. My understanding of a perfect image is that it best captures the coverage of the topic, consistent with our various policies. You're suggesting that the flag is more ambiguous about whether it's antisemitic, but this is exactly the issue discussed in our section on 1980s - present day: political convergence: "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." When this is the relevant discussion, it's hard for me to see what could be a closer or more encyclopedic match than the sourced image of the flag. Mackan79 (talk) 07:52, 5 January 2009 (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)

Given the history of this discussion, the overwhelming consensus against Malcolm's edit, and the fact that he accepted that consensus for several months without discussion, and then he came in and made this deletion several months later without a peep on talk, suggests trolling to me. It's a simple observation; wasn't meant as an attack and shouldn't be taken as one. As for Ali, please see the discussion from several months ago linked above. I offered 8 or 9 responses in that discussion, which you can easily find using the link at the top of this section. As Tarc put it above, the issue seems resolved at this point, unless someone has something new to add. Happy holidays. csloat (talk) 05:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Saying something is "trolling" is never a "simple observation"; rather, it's inevitably an uncivil personal attack. Please edit accordingly in the future. Happy holidays to you too. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Not going to play tit for tat with you Jay. csloat (talk) 09:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Unless it is demonstrated that Tariq Ali is a WP:reliable source on the subject of antisemitism, I will remove the material cited to him. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Just two points to consider. 1) The subject of this article is "new antisemitism", not antisemitism. 2) Tariq Ali is certainly a reliable source to his own views. The question should be if he is notable enough. // Liftarn (talk)

New Antisemitism is a type of antisemitism. There are some who consider the claim of a New Antisemitism invalid, but reliable sources for antisemitism are the best to judge that; and, in fact, there are recognized experts on the subject on both sides of that issue. Tariq Ali, while certainly notable, is not an expert reliable source on this subject. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

No, there is dispute about whether "new antisemitism" has much to do with antisemitism at all. And your requirement that people we cite here as having notable opinions must be acknowledged experts on a particular topic is a unique requirement not supported anywhere else in Wikipedia. Besides, Ali is enough of an expert anyway with some 2 dozen books, an Oxford education, and acknowledged expertise on Middle East topics (where "new antisemitism" is far more topical than a general heading of "antisemitism") -- certainly he's more of an expert than plenty of others cited in this article. What is your real problem with Ali? Malcolm we had this debate months ago and I refuted your position soundly with 8 arguments you never responded to; other editors (particularly G-Dett) added several other arguments to the mix. If you would like to revisit this debate please begin by discussing those arguments. Then work slowly to try to change the overwhelming consensus against your position. But simply announcing your intention to edit war here is extremely disruptive, and it will be ineffective. csloat (talk) 19:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

You did not, and still have not, refuted anything. You just keep repeating crap that is contrary to WP editing guidelines. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Now just calm down. You're wrong; just take a look at the discussion above from months ago when we went through this, and familiarize yourself with my refutation of your position. Or just start with the arguments I made in the paragraph directly above if you prefer. But just calling my arguments "crap" really won't do. csloat (talk) 00:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Since the article is about a claim that there has appeared a new form antisemitism, how can the opinions of the sources cited be relevant if they are not reliable sources on the subject of antisemitism? In fact, most of the sources now in the article meet that standard. Tariq Ali does not. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm seeing yet another example here of Malcolm editing against consensus, and using a flawed interpretations of WP policy to justify those changes. Tariq Ali is a noted author and activist. There is no need for him - or for anyone else cited in this article - to be formally accredited as some sort of expert (and how would this be done exactly anyway?) This article in my view is better for noting his critique of the concept. Readers are then free to disagree or agree with what he is saying. Malcolm I'm coming to the conclusion that you quite enjoy coming into pages where you can be a lone battler and edit against the views of every other editor involved. You then start removing well-sourced material that you happen to dislike or whose content you disagree with politically, citing WP policy as the reason and saying not much more than that others' arguments and sources are "crap". Apologies if this seems like an unnecessarily personal comment, but it is nonetheless relevant because this behaviour seems to be causing disruption to several pages here (see also Eurabia and Shlomo Sand). --Nickhh (talk) 11:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Nickhh, this page is for discussing improvements to the article. Your negative opinion of me is irrelevant to that purpose. (I suspect that some of the users editing this article are antisemitic creeps, but my personal views on the educational, psychological, and moral deficiencies of those users is not irrelevant to the discussion of the article. I just do my best to live with a crummy editing situation....and take a shower afterwards.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, that's why I started by discussing the inclusion of the Ali comment, to back up the view of seemingly every other editor, going back months, that it was fine. The conclusions I came to beyond that (about your editing, not about you) were purely secondary. And I see no anti-semitism here, btw. --Nickhh (talk) 09:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It has also been the subject of several Village Pump proposals of yours as well; "I'm not getting my way, what can I do to change it?" Once again, upon reading the previous discussion about this, consensus was clearly and unequivocally against you. Move on, already. Tarc (talk) 13:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Tark, if this edit of yours has a meaning, I have no idea what. Perhaps you just wanted to add to your edit count? Whatever the case, thanks for dropping by. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I posted to note the pattern of your repeated attempts to edit while ignoring consensus, actions which may be approaching "disruptive". Your objection to including Tariq Ali here was rejected. Also, the "k" on your keyboard seems to be wandering towards the "c" again. Might wanna get that looked at. Tarc (talk) 15:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could show me the rule saying that every editor is required to agree with you. Having views and editing goals different than yours is not disruptive. I am allowed to edit articles; and I will continue to edit in the way I think is best to create a balanced article, and in a way that I think is in the best interests of WP. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

What is disruptive is beating a dead horse without adding anything new to the discussion, edit warring without responding to arguments, and dismissing the overwhelming consensus against you as "crap." csloat (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Its called an editing disagreement. Calling that "disruptive" is a load of crap. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

An editing disagreement functions better if both sides explain their edits and listen to the other side and respond to their arguments. That's not your approach here. csloat (talk) 19:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Csloat, Comment on content, not on the contributor. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg, I don’t see why you make these kinds of comments. Just above, you stated: “Saying something is ‘trolling’ is never a ‘simple observation’; rather, it's inevitably an uncivil personal attack. Please edit accordingly in the future.”[2] Now in response to a perfectly reasonable comment, you instruct Csloat to comment only on the content and not on the contributor. You ignore that Malcolm just accused Csloat of “repeating crap.” Are you kidding? When you do this it seems like you’re turning the discussion into a game. Mackan79 (talk) 05:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Mackan79, in your view is accusing someone of "trolling" a personal attack or not? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it bears on my comment. If Csloat shouldn't accuse Malcolm of trolling, then Malcolm shouldn't accuse Csloat of "repeating crap." But my question was only why you comment on editors while telling them not to. The comment you had just responded to didn't call anyone a troll. Mackan79 (talk) 06:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking for some simple "yes" or "no" answers here. 1) In your view is accusing someone of "trolling" uncivil/a personal attack or not? 2) Do you think Malcolm's edits were deliberate and intentional attempts to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia for its editors, administrators, developers, and other people who work to create content for and help run Wikipedia.? The answers to those questions will provide answers for all others. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

That seems unlikely, since I didn't question your criticism of Csloat's "trolling" comment, but only your response to his perfectly reasonable comment at 19:26: "An editing disagreement functions better if both sides explain their edits and listen to the other side and respond to their arguments. That's not your approach here." The point is if you can tell someone not to make personal attacks, then Csloat is entitled to suggest ways to make editing more productive without it being a "personal attack." If you'd like to consider the point, feel free. Mackan79 (talk) 06:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Commodore Sloat knows, and understands, my reasons for removing the material. It has been discussed at great length. In addition to accusing me of trolling, he accused me of trying to double my editing strength by first removing the material as an IP user, and again with my own user name, which is unfounded. It is obvious that both accusations are of serious WP violations. On the other hand, users do not usually get blocked for crappy editing, which is what I accused him of. If either you, or Commodore Sloat, think there is any truth in those serious accusations against me, it should have been, and would have been, taken to AN/I. Those accusations amount to slander, and certainly violated WP:no personal attacks, and WP:CIVIL. If you think my remark about "crap" is an equal violation, a civility violation should be filed against me to parallel mine against Commodore Sloat. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Guys, let's all please calm down. I thought we were going to discuss article content and not other editors? I explained my accusation of trolling above. I still think it's true, and the evidence is obvious, but I don't care -- I'd rather discuss the article. I think the Tariq Ali issue has been beaten to death, and as Malcolm has raised no new points on this argument, I consider it settled, which is why additional attempts to censor that paragraph without new discussion could be considered trolling. In addition I haven't made any "crappy" edits of which I am aware, and in fact Malcolm's original accusation was of crappy arguments, not crappy editing. Either way, however, if Malcolm or Jay wants to report me for something please do it and be done with it -- otherwise let's get back to the article. And Malcolm, if you're not going to actually respond to an argument, it's no help calling it crap. Good day. csloat (talk) 18:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Did I hurt you sensitive feelings by calling your argument crap? Perhaps, in the future, I will call them your farkakte arguments. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Yinglish incivility now? That's certainly a new one. Seeing how it appears that consensus favors the retention of the Tariq Ali section, so time to progress to bigger and better things with the article. Tarc (talk) 23:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Your conception of "consensus" seems unique. If there is disagreement, usually consensus is built through some willingness to compromise. I have not seen that so far. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

A lone holdout (you) does not have the right or the ability to bring editing to a standstill. Consensus was reached, despite your refusal, and moved on. You're still fighting a battle when everyone else has already left the field. Tarc (talk) 02:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Tark wrote: A lone holdout (you) does not have the right or the ability to bring editing to a standstill.

If I don't have any rights or abilities here, as you claim, why are you still whining about my editing? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Malkum (see how much fun that is?), the issue here was your continued removal of material form the article. When challenged on this, you claimed that "that issue was not resolved". It has been clearly and unequivocally pointed out to you that in a previous discussion, consensus indicated that the material was to be kept, i.e. it clearly was resolved. What exactly is the problem that you are having here? Tarc (talk) 22:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Salve, Tarc! I hope that you and all the editors of this article have a happy, healthy, and productive New Year. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Counterpunch Reliable Source?

Reviewing the [[Talk:New_antisemitism&action=submit#trolling_from_anon_ip_.2B_established_user|above discussion}, it seems to me the key issue is whether the source of the Tariq Ali material ( "Notes on Anti-Semitism, Zionism and Palestine", Counterpunch, March 4, 2004, first published in il manifesto, February 26, 2004 ) is a reliable source. Gerardw (talk) 19:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Well that's not the reason the original complainant gave of course. Counterpunch is certainly a partisan and somewhat polemical online source, but I don't think anyone could seriously suggest that it would have made up what Tariq Ali said. That is, we can be reasonably sure that the quote attributed to him is accurate. Note of course that the piece in question also appears to have been published in Il Manifesto .. which does of course mean it was published (presumably) translated into Italian, and in a Communist paper. But will we hold that against it? --Nickhh (talk) 22:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Article Formatting

Has anyone else noticed that the article's layout has begun to look really bad. It seems way too chaotic. I think this is something that we can work together on.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The block-quote formatting is off, such that the Mark Strauss quote appears in the section on Brian Klug, and the Klug quote in the Zipperstein section. I'll have a look at this in a moment. CJCurrie (talk) 02:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't figure out what's wrong with this -- could someone else look it over? CJCurrie (talk) 02:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I took a stab at fixing it. I think it looks better now, though others may disagree. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 02:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

it looks good

All I would chnage here is the word "controversial" before "concept" in the lede.

Thsi concept is by no means taken as fact, and is indeed controversial, not just by out right opponents, but by more reasonable voices that do see a new form of prejudice arising, but that its not linked to antisemitism, historically, organically or otherwise. It helps keep alegations of bias out, and is factually correct and verifiably controversial.

I fthis change is done, I am nominating for GA.

Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 07:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Image issues

Regarding the images, it seems we have recently moved the Zombietime image from the lead to the first section, added another image from the same protest, and now moved that second image down to the section, "Opposition to Israel not necessarily antisemitism." This is to consolidate a few points discussed above.

1. If we are adding this second image of the protest (supported largely because it is discussed in a sufficiently reliable source[3]) it seems noteworthy that the exact issue presented in the photo is discussed in the section 1980's - present day: political convergence. (In fact, the section should possibly be renamed as it does not discuss the convergence theme at all, potentially as a result of subsequent editing). This would seem to suggest that the second image is more appropriate for this section.
2. If so, the question is what to do with the Zombietime image. I realize this has been discussed ad nauseum, but I have two questions. First, are we confident that this image depicts the topic of New Antisemitism as it has been covered by reliable sources? My understanding of this argument is that the image shows the "political convergence" discussed by some authors. However, the actual convergence here seems not to be the one discussed by sources, or in our caption, but if anything then primarily an odd form of opposition to racism and war. The main demon is a "capitalist whiteman" while the main anti-Zionist sentiment seems to be that its proponents are agitating this capitalist white man toward war. Adding in the element of the "counterfeit Jews," I don't think you have to be clear what message the poster is attempting, to say that it is not generally what is referred to as the "New antisemitism." Second, does the image fit well into this article? If so I'm not sure where. The main problems I see, however, are that a.) the entire anti-racism message in the poster (seen more in the matching poster[4]), strange as it may be, is rendered illegible by our presentation, meaning that we are presenting the image inaccurately, and b.) unless done very carefully, the image has a strong potential to damage the article in the same way as would, for example, a cartoon by Carlos Latuff.

These are just a few issues, and I know that many others have been discussed, but I wonder if people can address the specific suggestion that 1.) the newer image is a better fit for the initial section covering 1980-present, and 2.) if the Zombietime picture from the same protest still belongs somewhere else in the article, this needs a clearer explanation. Thanks, Mackan79 (talk) 08:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

As I indicated above, there are extreme WP:UNDUE concerns with having two images from a single protest in this article, unless we radically revise its content. So one of them has to go. I suggest removing the image that doesn't have a reliable source. csloat (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Clarification: Both these photos were taken by the ultra-right blogger Zombie, but it seems like one was cited by a few news articles as evidence of "current anti-semitism", whereas the one with the academic citation is meant to be specifically "new anti-semitism". Shii (tock) 03:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The "ultra-right blogger Zombie" seems a bit more concerned about antisemitism than your average Nazi. <<-armon->> (talk) 05:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Good point -- so both are not only images of the same protest, but they are taken by the same photographer, who seems to have his work showcased on multiple Wikipedia pages. I think this compounds the UNDUE concern I raised. Again, it's best to stick just with the photo that is published in a reliable source which specifically makes the connection to "new" antisemitism. Also. I'm not sure either has an "academic" citation, but that word may be ambiguous. csloat (talk) 04:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been following this, but wow, you guys are still trying to get rid of that image. So is a supposed vio of UNDUE the current argument for removing it? <<-armon->> (talk) 05:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Tariq ali section

What can we do to put this conflict to rest once and for all? We have about 12 editors supporting inclusion, and one - now two - supporting exclusion. Can we start another RfC, or is there another way to discover whether the consensus has changed? csloat (talk) 17:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC) Update - I moved the material to a different section; hopefully that will solve the problem. csloat (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I accidentally hit post before my edit summary was done. OK moving the section helps with the "last word" issue, but doesn't address a) the repetitiveness, and b) the fact that Ali is just an activist published in a far-left publication. We could also include David Duke's opinions published in a far-right pub, or an Islamist in an Islamist one. Would bloat the article, but wouldn't improve it. <<-armon->> (talk) 03:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Both those issues have been addressed in spades in the last discussion over the past year or so. It's clearly not repetitive -- Ali makes claims the other cited sources don't -- and Ali is extremely notable on this issue as has been explained. You are welcome to include Duke if you find him saying something relevant and notable, but he has no relation to Ali whatsoever so I'm not sure why you bring it up. csloat (talk) 04:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The point is, we could include all sorts of non academic opinions/polemics on the subject, but it wouldn't improve the article. What specific claim do you think that Ali makes which Finkelstein doesn't already cover? <<-armon->> (talk) 04:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)