Jump to content

Talk:New antisemitism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Historicist (talk | contribs) at 18:10, 21 September 2009 (→Material removed by User:Commodore Sloat). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good article nomineeNew antisemitism was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 25, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed

Template:WP1.0

Shortcut

article is too long

I think this article is too long and too much devoted to showboating the opinions of a few academics.

Telaviv1 (talk) 11:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom section

I am going to remove the following paragraph from New_antisemitism#United_Kingdom.

Lord Janner of Braunstone gave evidence regarding antisemitic remarks made to him in Parliament. After the arrest of Saddam Hussein, another peer approached him and said: "We've got rid of Saddam Hussein now. Your lot are next." When asked what she meant by "your lot," she replied: "Yes, you cannot go on killing Palestinians forever, you know." Oona King, former MP for Bethnal Green and Bow, gave evidence that many of her former constituents told her they could not vote for her because she was funded by the Israeli Secret Service.[48]

This article is for discussion of the concept of antisemitism. It is not a list of antisemetic incidents. Reference to members of the British government gives the misleading impression of systemic or institutional antisemitism in the United Kingdom. As this is not proven, the inclusion here is undue weight.

Further, the mean head is "International Perspectives". In the example of UK, the British All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism is relevant - specific isolated incidents of anti-semitism are not. Please see the entries for France, Israel, and the USA - they do not mention incidents of anti-semitism in the government, but rather the political and social enquiries into the matter.

Beganlocal (talk) 19:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Research in peer-reviewed journals

This article contains too much of the he-said, she-said of opinion columns. I have started a section devoted to Research on the new Anti-semitism that has been publishedin peer-reviewed journals.Historicist (talk) 20:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although the two academic studies referenced under this title are worthy of inclusion, I don't think it's appropriate to portray them as any sort of definitive statement on the subject. "Research in peer-reviewed journals" is clearly an inappropriate title. CJCurrie (talk) 22:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the studies? They are compelling. Do you really htink that this belongs only at the end of the article?Historicist (talk) 22:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure the articles make some valid points, but that's not the issue here. My point is that it's not appropriate to use these two academic articles as a definitive statement on a subject as complex as "new anti-Semitism". To respond to your second point, I'm certain that these two articles aren't important enough to mention on line 38; if you can think of a better place for the section, please suggest it. CJCurrie (talk) 23:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The nature of science (and especially social science) is such that no single experiment or observation instantly creates a scientific consensus. Such results should certainly be included, but they should be presented as what they are: points of information, not definitive and unassailable conclusions. --FOo (talk) 16:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Material removed by User:Commodore Sloat

That material doesn't mention "new antisemitism" at all. I'm removing it again. csloat (talk) 22:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • the material consists of two, formal, academic papers that appeared in peer-reviewed journals both addressing the issue of the new antisemitism. Frankly, I am at a loss to understand the Commodore's objection. The material is below.:Historicist (talk) 18:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Academic studies

A study entitled "Modern Anti-Semitism and Anti-Israeli Attitudes", published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology in 2009, argues that "those claiming that there is no connection between antisemitism and hostility toward Israel are wrong."[1] The authors of this study argue that there is "sometimes a link between anti-Semitism and anti-Israel sentiment", and that "hostility toward Israel may serve as cover for anti-Semitism and, at the same time, feed back and strengthen anti-Semitism."[2]

A 2006 study in the Journal of Conflict Resolution argued that although almost no respondents in countries of the European Union regarded themselves as antisemitic, antisemitic attitudes correlated with anti-Israel opinions.[3] Looking at populations in 10 European countries, Small and Kaplan surveyed 5,000 respondents, asking them about Israeli actions and classical anti-Semitic stereotypes. "There were questions about whether the IDF purposely targets children, whether Israel poisons the Palestinians' water supply - these sorts of extreme mythologies," Small says. "The people who believed the anti-Israel mythologies also tended to believe that Jews are not honest in business, have dual loyalties, control government and the economy, and the like," Small says. According to this study, anti-Israel respondents were 56% more likely to be anti-Semitic than the average European. "This is extraordinary. It's off the charts." says Small. The study also found that popular levels of both antisemitism and anti-Israel opinion were lower than expected, and did not equate antisemitism with anti-Zionism.[4]

==References}

  1. ^ Modern Anti-Semitism and Anti-Israeli Attitudes, Florette Cohen, Department of Psychology, The College of Staten Island, City University New York; Lee Jussim, Department of Psychology, Rutgers University, New Brunswick; Kent D. Harber, Department of Psychology, Rutgers University, Newark; Gautam Bhasin, Department of Counseling, Columbia Teacher’s College, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2009, Vol. 97, No. 2, 290–306
  2. ^ Modern Anti-Semitism and Anti-Israeli Attitudes, Florette Cohen, Department of Psychology, The College of Staten Island, City University New York; Lee Jussim, Department of Psychology, Rutgers University, New Brunswick; Kent D. Harber, Department of Psychology, Rutgers University, Newark; Gautam Bhasin, Department of Counseling, Columbia Teacher’s College, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2009, Vol. 97, No. 2, 290–306 [1]
  3. ^ Kaplan, E. H., & Small, C. A. (2006). Anti-Israel sentiment predicts anti-Semitism in Europe. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 50, 548–561.
  4. ^ Yale expert: Not enough known about anti-Semitism, Aug. 8, 2007, Haviv Rettig Gur , THE JERUSALEM POST [2]

Antisemitism and anti-Israelism

Personal attacks redacted.

Yesterday we had a fine example of wikipedia no-nothingism. Two well-designed academic studies were published establishing not only that there a link between anti-Semitism and anti-Israel attitudes and activism, (the studies show that people with anti-Israel opinions, people who would never utter an anti-Semitic word and who deny being at all anti-Semitic, harbor deeply anti-Semitic attitudes,) but that anti-Israel rhetoric demonstrably leads to anti-Semitic attitudes and incidents. I attempted to add a sentence, (differently tailored sentences) to four or five articles that contain lengthy sections on the argument over whether there is a link between anti-Semitism and anti-Israel rhetoric. CJCurrie followed me around and removed the sentences from all but one article. I do not know if CJCurrie is such a person, but there are some people who cannot bear to see actual evidence that contradicts their deary-held beliefs. The pity is that quite a few of them edit Wikipedia.Historicist (talk) 14:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to attack other editors. Please continue the discussion above with a view towards consensus, rather than towards finding ways to condemn other editors. --FOo (talk) 16:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_antisemitism&oldid=315336013"