Jump to content

Talk:New antisemitism/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

Flannery section

I have decided to remove this paragraph from the article:

In The Anguish of the Jews: Twenty-Three Centuries of Antisemitism, Father Edward H. Flannery writes that, because most of the spectacular displays of antisemitism have come from the right — for example, Czarist pogroms, the Dreyfus Affair, and Adolf Hitler — it has blinded onlookers to what he calls an "uninterrupted strain of antisemitism on the Left," [1] quoting Dennis Prager and Joseph Telushkin who write: "The further Left one goes, the greater the antisemitism." [2] Flannery writes that it came as no surprise to historians of the left that, as William D. Rubinstein wrote in 1978: "Today, the main enemies of the Jews and Israel are almost exclusively on the left, most obviously the Communist states, the radical Third World anti-Zionist nations and their sympathizers in the West." [3] Flannery argues that "all the progenitors of socialist theory, with the exception of St Simon, were bitter antisemites," [1] arguing that Marx and Engels took much of what Flannery calls their antisemitism from Proudhon, Bauer, Fourier, Toussenel, and Fichte. Flannery writes that in 1891, the Second International Socialist Congress refused to condemn antisemitism without also condemning philosemitism. He cites historian Zosa Szajkowski, who writes that he could not find a "single word on behalf of Jews" in the entirety of French socialist literature from 1820 to 1920. The link between antisemitism and the ideology of the left is "not accidental," Flannery argues, because Judaism stresses nationality, peoplehood, or religious commitment; extreme leftist ideologies and traditional Judaism are "almost by definition incompatible." [4]

There are several reasons why this paragraph does not meet the standards of encyclopedic inclusion. I've explained my reasons in detail, and have provided sub-headers for the benefit of readers.

I would request that anyone who wishes to respond please do so after the end of this post.

Sorry, it's too much to remember. I'll have to respond in between paras. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
You could have just cut-and-pasted, you know. CJCurrie 22:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Irrelevance to the NAS article

The parts of Flannery's book referenced in this paragraph relate to a supposed "uninterrupted strain of antisemitism on the Left". Leaving aside the accuracy or inaccuracy of this charge, Flannery's evidence is not relevant to the concept of a "new antisemitism".

The problems of defining "new antisemitism" have been raised many times in discussions concerning this article, such that it may be impossible to find a definition that satisfies everyone. The term is currently defined on the article page as referring to the concept of a recent convergence of antisemitic thought and action involving three distinct ideologies: the far right, the left, and radical Islam. Previous versions of the article suggested that it was primarily a concept applied to the left, and specifically to the New Left. Some authors have used the term primarily in reference to radical Islam, while others have used it in a different sense, synonymous with "contemporary antisemitism".

Notwithstanding their differences, however, these definitions are linked by a common theme: they all refer to perceived developments in contemporary history. The excerpted portions of Flannery's text do not.

"NAS" is not defined as "antisemitism of the left", nor is it defined in terms of a linear progression of historical events dating back to the 19th century (which would be an absurdity for a "new" concept.) The fact that Proudhon and Fourier were antisemites is relevant to studies of Proudhon and Fourier, but not to the concept of a "new antisemitism". Similarly, the 1891 resolution of the Second International may or may not be relevant to a history of 19th century antisemitism, but it is clearly irrelevant to this page.

It is defined in part as an antisemitism of the left, and some commentators focus almost exclusively on this aspect of it. [1] The Flannery material indicates that this is not new, and it provides a background to the development of the concept, as do the other sources in that section. Why single out Flannery? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
It might have something to do with the fact that Flannery posits a connection between *19th century* socialism and modern antisemitism, which is clearly beyond the range of this article. (Seriously, has anyone else tried to claim *Proudhon and Fourier* as spiritual heirs to "NAS".) I could add in passing that Flannery's "continuous line" ignores a long period when Left groups supported Zionism as a national liberation movement. CJCurrie 22:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Um, you do realize what WP:NOR and WP:V are about? Flannery is a reliable source, and that's his view; it's not up to you to reject him because your personal analysis of history differs from his. Jayjg (talk) 17:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I've presented evidence that Flannery's 1985 edition is not a reliable source. You've ignored it. CJCurrie 17:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Source credibility

There are two editions of Edward Flannery's "The Anguish of the Jews". The first was published in 1965 by Macmillan Press. The second was issued in 1985 by Stimulus Books, a division of the Paulist Press (which mostly publishes Catholic devotional material). Copyright in the latter is owned by the Roman Catholic Bishop of Providence. There are significant differences between these books, and some sections (including the text referenced above) appear only in the second.

The original edition was released by a respected firm, and is recognized as being a work of scholarly merit. The second version was issued by a religious press, and there is some reason to believe that it may not have been adequately vetted (see below).

The circumstances of the Second Edition's publication can't help but draw into question its reliability as a source. (Are we really to be surprised that a book issed by the Catholic Church at the height of the Cold War would include sections attacking socialism?)

I don't see what this has to do with anything. Flannery was the author of both editions. He is our source. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
One edition was published by a credible source, the other was effectively self-published through a religious organization. I'm sorry you can't see the difference. CJCurrie 22:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Flannery is a reliable source, and of course what is relevant are his most recent views, not his earlier views. Again, your personal views about possible errors in Flannery's analysis are pure original research. Jayjg (talk) 17:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I've presented evidence that Flannery's 1985 edition is not a reliable source. You've ignored it. CJCurrie 17:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Inconsistency

Flannery's comments on the relationship between antisemitism and socialism underwent a significant transformation between 1965 and 1985.

Consider the following statement from the 1965 edition:

Toussenel ranks high among the high priests of so-called Socialist anti-Semitism, which enlisted in varying degrees such names as Pierre Proudhon, Karl Marx, Bruno Bauer, and lesser lights, all of whom trained their guns on Jewish "unproductiveness," "parasitism," and the like. The association of Socialism with anti-Semitism was unsubstantial, however, and did not survive the condemnation of the anti-Semitic movement by the International Socialist Congress of 1891. After this, anti-Semitism became quite consistently a phenomenon of conservatism or the anti-democratic right. (p. 176)

Now, consider this revised statement from 1985:

Toussenel ranks high among the high priests of socialist antisemitism, which enlisted in varying degrees such names as Pierre Proudhon, Karl Marx, Bruno Bauer, and lesser lights, all of whom trained their guns on Jewish "unproductiveness", "parasitism," and the like. The association of Socialist with antisemitism came to an end officially with the condemnation of the antisemitic movement at the International Socialist Congress of 1891, but this did not spell its end in socialist reality. On the other hand, increasingly and more consistently antisemitism became an attribute of conservatism and the anti-democratic right. (p. 177)

It would be interesting to speculate on the reasons for this change, and particularly on whether or not it had anything to do with increased criticism of Israel from the Left after 1967. One way or the other, it seems inappropriate for us to reference Flannery's 1985 comments on antisemitism and socialism without drawing his 1965 comments into the picture in some way.

You're engaged in OR. This is what the author wrote, period. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
My point is that we shouldn't convey Flannery's 1985 argument without also conveying his 1965 argument. CJCurrie 22:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Nonsense. His views may have evolved, but you can't use original research to try to revert his most current views, based on earlier works. Jayjg (talk) 17:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I've argued that we should provide *both* statements, or neither. And, anyway, the 1985 edition is demonstrably less reliable than the 1965 edition. CJCurrie 17:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Demonstrably poor scholarship

Most of the cited text is taken from two paragraphs on p. 274 of Flannery's 1985 edition:

Antisemitism is generally considered by both Jews and non-Jews to be a phenomenon of the Right. And certainly in modern times its most spectacular displays, exemplified by Czarist pogroms, the Dreyfus Affair, Hitler, and chauvinistic demagogues, have tended to justify that interpretation. But this view has tended to eclipse the fact that there has been an uninterrupted strain of antisemitism on the Left.[33] It should not, further, obscure the recrudescence of leftist antisemitism that has developed since the rebirth of the State of Israel. Indeed at present leftist "anti-Zionism" predominates on the antisemitic spectrum - a spectrum running leftward from liberal to socialist to radical to Communist. Prager and Telushkin put the matter succinctly: "The further Left one goes, the greater the antisemitism."[34] W.D. Rubenstein is no less direct: "Today, the main enemies of the Jews and Israel are almost exclusively on the left, most obviously the Communist states, the radical Third World anti-Zionist nations and their sympathizers in the West."[35]
This development comes as no surprise to historians of leftist ideology. From its inception socialist thought took on an antisemitic turn. All the progenitors of socialist theory, with the exception of St. Simon, were bitter antisemites. Marx learned much of his own antisemitism from Proudhon, Bauer, Fourier, Toussenel, Fichte, and others, as did also Engels. The Protocols came from socialist sources. In 1891, the Second International Socialist Congress refused to condemn antisemitism without condemning philosemitism at the same time. During the Dreyfus affair socialist leaders refused to counter the rightist attack on the Jewish army officer. Historian Zosa Szajkowski, writing in 1947 after a close study of French socialist literature, concluded that he could not find a single word on behalf of the Jews in the whole of that literature from 1820 to 1920. [36]

There are a number of problems here.

Szajkowski

There is one (1) footnote for the second paragraph:

See Zosa Szajkowski, "The Jewish Saint-Simonians and Socialist Antisemitism in France" in Jewish Social Studies, January, 1947, cited in Prager and Telushkin, op. cit., p. 142.

It's a shame that Flannery didn't take the time to check the original source. If he had, he might have discovered this statement: "In quoting only the antisemitic pronouncements of the French socialists, before Edouard Drumont, the writer may be suspected of having ignored the pro-Jewish sentiments. In order to ally any such suspicion, the writer wishes therefore to say explicitly that his efforts to find sympathetic references to Jews in the French socialist literature, from Saint-Simon to the date of Drumont's first appearance, have been futile" (p. 60) Drumont's first appearance was in 1886.

Flannery might have also discovered the following statement, had he looked up the original essay: "It was not until antisemitism had joined hands with the "Boulangist" reaction (1889) that some socialist groups have become aware of the danger and started to fight against antisemitism" (p. 59; tense error in original). He certainly wouldn't have made his lunatic suggestion that Szajkowski found not "a single word on behalf of the Jews" in French socialist literature before *1920*, nor would he have suggested the "all the progenitors of socialist theory, with the exception of St. Simon, were bitter antisemites".

(I should add that Szajkowski's essay is an erudite scholarly piece, and deserves a better legacy than being used to prop up Father Flannery's efforts to malign the Left as antisemitic. An interesting fact I learned from the essay is that Fourier apparently concealed his antisemitism behind facetious support for a plan to move Europe's Jews en masse to Palestine.)

Dreyfus

During the Dreyfus affair socialist leaders refused to counter the rightist attack on the Jewish army officer.

This statement is profoundly misleading. It's true that the "integral" faction of French socialism didn't participate in the campaign to exonerate Dreyfus (see Szajkowski, p. 59), but someone of Flannery's experience must surely have known that *most* French socialist leaders were active Dreyfusards. For him to suggest otherwise is intellectually dishonest, and for *us* to repeat this suggestion is profoundly unencyclopedic.

Protocols

On the subject of lunatic suggestions, may I assume that no one reviewing this page is willing to defend Flannery's unreferenced suggestion that "Protocols" was derived from socialist sources?

Summary

In light of these errors, I do not believe that the 1985 edition of Flannery's book should be considered a reliable source for the history of "new antisemitism".

I see that SlimVirgin didn't respond to this section. CJCurrie 22:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Of course not. You continue to engage in original research in your efforts to refute Flannery's work. However, Flannery is a reliable source; you, on the other hand, are an anonymous Wikipedia editor. Jayjg (talk) 17:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I've presented evidence that Flannery's 1985 edition is not a reliable source. You've ignored it, and I suspect that you're not taking the process seriously. How on earth is it possible for you to twist "OR" and "V" to suggest that we should present Flannery's demonstrably false statements as fact? CJCurrie 17:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
You're engaged in OR. Please read the policy. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I have (read it), and I'm not. Feel free to demonstrate otherwise, if you can. CJCurrie 19:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Probable misrepresentation

Our summary describes Prager and Telushkin as having written, "The further Left one goes, the greater the antisemitism." This comment is presented in isolation, and without further clarification as to their intentions. The effect may be to have readers believe Prager and Telushkin were referring to a "left to right" spectrum. To judge from Flannery's remarks, however, it appears more likely that they were referring to a "left to *centre*" spectrum.

Unfortunately, I was not able to obtain a copy of Prager and Telushkin's book before writing my comments. I suspect, however, that the current edit may be a distortion of their true intentions. I am not suggesting that this was deliberate.

This is all your original research. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it's my evaluation of the way Flannery presents the source. The current article statement is for all intents and purposes a selective half-quote. CJCurrie 22:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
In other words, more original research attempts to refute Flannery's work. Where has your refutation been published? Jayjg (talk) 17:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I've presented evidence that Flannery's 1985 edition is not a reliable source. You've ignored it. I don't need to publish a refutation to justify *removing* an unreliable source from the article. CJCurrie 17:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Sliding definitions

Flannery's statement that "Extreme leftist ideologies and traditional Judaism are almost by definition incompatible" is not relevant to this article. Opposition to "traditional Judaism" is not, in and of itself, generally recognized as sufficient proof of antisemitism, let alone of "new antisemitism". (Are secular Jews who reject their religious backgrounds automatically considered antisemites? Of course not. For that matter, are Reform Jews who reject Kashrut considered antisemites? Of course not.)

He writes: "Extreme leftist ideologies and traditional Judaism are almost by definition incompatible." He doesn't say that opposition to traditional Judaism must be antisemitism; nor is not keeping kosher opposition to Judaism. This is all your own opinion, CJC, and you're slipping and sliding between topics making category errors. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
If he's not saying it's antisemitism, then why are we including it in this article? CJCurrie 22:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It may be possible to incorporate Flannery's statements on the Left and particularism into the article, but I doubt there's any compelling need to do this in light of his credibility issues on other fronts.

Summary

For all of these reasons, it is clear to me that the Flannery paragraph is not encyclopedic, and needs to be removed from the article. It may be possible to restore Rubinstein's quote at some point in the future, but only if we reference the original source.

I've put a fair bit of time into researching these matters. I trust that any editor who wishes to restore the Flannery paragraph will review my comments, and address my arguments.

Please add your comments after this line. CJCurrie 06:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Response

  • CJC, you've done everything possible since you started editing this article to remove references to left-wing antisemitism. It's unseemly, it's wrong-headed, and it's pointless. There's a lot of it around, and increasingly so; every week more articles are published about it. You're swimming against the tide trying to pretend it doesn't exist. Flannery provides some background indicating that it's nothing new. This will give the reader an interesting context within which to study the development of the concept of NAS, and we're here to provide exactly that kind of background material. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Slim, whoever doubted that there was some antisemitism on the left? I've never objected to actual left-wing antisemitism being highlighted in this article, as appropriate. What I'm opposing is an attempt to use flawed scholarship to suggest a "continuous line" of antisemitism dominating the left. CJCurrie 22:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
This is an impressive and well-researched argument, CJ. I fully concur with your conclusions here. john k 21:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Disagree with continual attempts to bury antisemitism from the left. It astonishes me that the history section can contain statements from Pierre-André Taguieff regarding antisemitism from the left following the 1967 Six-Day War, a whole long section about Forster and Epstein's 1974 book (inserted only so that the "famous scholar" - i.e. anti-Zionist polemicist Allen Brownfeld can insert his own political views attempting to refute the concept), statements from Robert Wistrich Abba Eban in the 1980s regarding the phenomenon, etc., yet people here can still claim that it is all about "the upsurge in antisemitism after 2001", and attempt to exclude Flannery on those grounds. Why was there no objection when the Brownfeld material about books in the 1970s was inserted, yet Flannery's material is somehow too early? If those who object to the concept want to be taken seriously, they must start reading the article, reading ALL the relevant material, and editing with the intent of elucidating, not obfuscating. Jayjg (talk) 21:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • There's a bit of a difference between the 1970s and the 19th century, Jay. Meanwhile, I see you haven't actually responded to any of my arguments. CJCurrie 22:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Well if you want to look at it like that then there was even more left-wing anti-semitism in the 19th century. This is due to the fact that during the period of the great European empires the dominant left-wing ideology was essentially various forms of nationalism. We all know how tolerant they can be.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
      • They've already been responded to; in a nutshell, your original research regarding sources doesn't really trump WP:V. Jayjg (talk) 04:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Have you read my initial comments, Jay? CJCurrie 05:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Yes. Have you read WP:NOR and WP:V? Jayjg (talk) 17:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
            • Yes, and I've presented evidence that Flannery's 1985 edition is not a reliable source. You've ignored it, and I don't believe that you're taking the process seriously. "NOR" was never meant to be used as a justification for retaining obviously unsuitable material. CJCurrie 17:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
              • You're engaged in your own original research in order to denigrate a source that you disagree with. If Flannery had been writing about right-wing antisemitism, you wouldn't bat an eyelid about him being used. Please read the content policies. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
                • I've read the policies, and they don't apply here. If I were trying to submit information *on an article page* that Flannery's source is unreliable, then I'd be in violation of NOR ... but there's nothing in the policy that prevents me from *removing* information on the grounds that the source is unreliable. And stop the personal abuse, please. CJCurrie 19:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
                  • Of course NOR applies. You're imposing on the source your own opinion of the issues, then trying to rule the source out on that basis. The point is that left-wing antisemitism is a major part of NAS, and so in the history section we give some information about what people have said about the existence of left-wing antisemitism prior to the emergence of the concept. Flannery is one the best known writers on the history of AS, and so we use him. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


                  • Isn't there a little humor in accusing somebody of "engaging" in original research? And to mean by that, when somebody looks through a source and finds it actually says something else? I'm pretty sure this situation needs a comic more than it needs a debate... Mackan79 19:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
                    • Indeed. I can't believe this is even being raised as a serious argument. (Meanwhile, I will reiterate the "NAS" is *not* "a history of left-wing antisemitism", and the material on Fourier, Proudhon et al is completely irrelevant.) CJCurrie 20:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
                      • In your opinion, it is completely irrelevant. You must write to the publishers of the book to complain. In the meantime, we have chosen a classic history of antisemitism from which to quote a few points about the author's view on the background to leftwing antisemitism, which he concludes is no surprise because the values of traditional Judaism and the values of the far left are, in his opinion, incompatible. It doesn't matter whether you agree. It doesn't matter whether you think he's a lunatic. His book is well known in antisemitism studies, and that is what he says. Period. And the history of NAS is very much related to the history of leftwing antisemitism. I know this makes you shudder, but left-wing antisemitism is the major aspect of the NAS concept. As long as I've seen you editing here, you've never understood that neither the article nor its talk page are the place for your personal opinions and original research. If you have other arguments against the inclusion of that paragraph, I'm willing to listen to them, or if you think it should be written differently, or shortened or whatever, but that you don't like what he says is not a reason to remove it. Or if Mel comes up with an argument against, I'll abide by his decision. But I can't listen to you try for the thousandth time to get rid of a source because you want to protect the left from allegations of antisemitism. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
                        • Slim, Edward Flannery's *1965* book is a classic history of antisemitism. His 1985 "updated version" is a unreliable and unworthy follow-up, which wasn't even published by an accredited firm. You're playing on confusion between the two editions to keep flawed, unreliable and in at least one case *false* information included the article. Btw, I didn't say *Flannery* was a lunatic: I said that two of his assertions were sheer lunacy (and I stand by this). I'm not going to respond to your personal attacks, but I'll reiterate that the views of early 19th century socialists are irrelevant to this article. I maintain that any fair-minded, uninvolved party will agree with my conclusions. Cheers, CJCurrie 22:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

May I please reiterate my request that any editor who wishes to restore the Flannery paragraph please review my comments, and address my arguments. CJCurrie 01:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm truly baffled as to how to interpret this: [2]. CJCurrie 09:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Who are you that you think you should be allowed to delete whatever you want prior to discussion, but everyone else MUST discuss before they restore it? I'm sure it's no cooincidence that you want to get rid of someone who talks about the "uninterrupted strain of antisemitism on the Left." Please stop being so predictable. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Slim, I took the time to prepare a detailed explanation of why the Flannery section is inappropriate for the article. I avoided personal abuse, and focused on evidence. Could you please do the same, if you want the section returned?
And to answer your question, I deleted the section because it obviously didn't meet the standard for inclusion, in light of my investigations. Do you honestly think it should be returned? CJCurrie 09:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
You posted your explanation of the deletion one minute before removing the material i.e. prior to any discussion. Could you explain why you feel you are allowed to do this, but others must discuss before restoring it? SlimVirgin (talk) 09:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
With respect, Slim, I think this we're getting a bit off-track. I'm "entitled" to remove material that's obviously unsuitable for the article, and I've explained in detail why I made that decision in this instance. If entitlement is the issue, I could just as easily ask why you initially included the paragraph with no prior discussion.
The question we should be addressing is the following: does the Flannery material belong in the article? So far, you have not addressed any of my arguments. CJCurrie 09:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
We're not getting off track. If you're entitled to remove without discussion, others are entitled to restore and ask you to discuss it first. Do not remove it again until there has been a proper discussion about it, because there are people who disagree with you. Practise what you preach, please. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Slim, have you read my original comments? CJCurrie 09:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
No, I haven't because they're so long, but if you stop reverting, I'll read them and try to address your points, and then perhaps we could try to have a civilized discussion instead of the usual reverting and carping. I know it sounds unlikely but I live in hope. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm prepared to leave the Flannery paragraph on the page for as long as another day, if you promise to read my comments during that time. I'm not at all impressed that you would restore the paragraph three times without so much as reviewing my arguments. CJCurrie 10:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
And I'm not impressed that you think it's okay to keep on removing something over objections. If you post material as lengthy as you have, in fairness you have to allow people a few days to read and respond to it. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
If you read my comments fairly, you'll understand why it would be inappropriate to leave the paragraph in place for that long. CJCurrie 10:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • For now I'll say this: based on what I've seen, I can't go as far as calling Flannery completely irrelevant, since it does speak to the debate about whether "New Antisemitism" is actually new. The conflict between the two editions, though, seems a much more serious issue. To that, I'll simply say the the two things which particularly raise flags for me are the "The further left the more antisemitism" statement, and the "Nobody could find a positive word" statement, simply because they're little rhetorical bombshells, presented offhand, and both two degrees from the original context. In that situation, I think you can present an individual's general argument, but you shouldn't quote little snippets of highly controversial evidence in a way that obscures the original meaning (left of center or left of right or what? As CJ nicely points out). Other than that, I wouldn't insist on removing everything, but I think CJ makes a good case that the whole thing needs an update, which may well make it unsuitable. Mackan79 19:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, for "The further left the more antisemitism" check out Bakunin#Anti-Semitism. <<-armon->> 13:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree that the paragraph should be removed. CJ has made a detailed case (talk page original research of the very best kind) for why the 1985 edition is not an RS. The only attempted rebuttal to this has been the claim that "Flannery was the author of both editions. He is our source." This is sophistry. Reliable-source status is not a permanent and inalienable endowment of biographical persons; it arises from a configuration of factors surrounding the publication of any given material (as anyone who's ever tried to cite material from a prominent person's blog, for example, will know very well). Flannery hasn't taken a swan-dive into intellectual ignominy á la David Irving, but he does appear to have untethered himself from the rigors of vetted scholarship and dropped gently into the bosom of a religious press, where he is free to enjoy the languors of self-publication and make grotesque farm-league errors of the sort CJ catalogues. Until we see a serious rebuttal to CJ on this point, the 1985 edition is out. As for the 1965 edition, for us to imply and endorse the explanatory relevance of a book published two years before the earliest postulated appearance of the phenomenon under discussion – ! – is article-page original research of the very worst kind.--G-Dett 22:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Moot I'm truly amazed at this complete flouting of WP:OR and WP:V -hello, "verifiability, not truth". This is more than original research, it's oppo on an RS the editor doesn't agree with. This is completely beyond scope. Imagine if we were to start "fact-checking" the millions of sources in WP to the same degree! The later edition loses RS status because it was published by Catholics during the cold war? C'mon, there are any number of equally plausible theories we could advance for him shifting publishers. However, unless you've got an RS -not some wild theory- noting some sort of decline in his scholarship, it's simply a moot point. Well crafted though -I'll grant him that. That must explain how it's seduced a few editors here. <<-armon->> 13:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
OR means putting original research into articles. Looking back at sources and checking their citations is something we should be doing, and I'm impressed that CJCurrie has done so. The idea that we should discourage such things is ridiculous. CJCurrie is suggesting that we remove information from an article because it is inaccurate, and he has provided plenty of sources to demonstrate this inaccuracy. The idea that it should be included anyway because what CJ has done constitutes "original research" seems entirely mystifying to me. It seems to me that including Flannery and implying that his comments have anything to do with "new antisemitism" is a "novel synthesis," and as such, is much more clearly an instance of original research than anything CJCurrie has done. john k 14:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The statements are clearly attributed to Flannery. We have not made the claims, someone in an RS has. Like I said, -moot. Let's pick another example. Suppose I wanted to take issue with Tariq Ali's statement that Israel 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." I could go, do a bunch of OR about the aggregate military strength of the "Arab world" (I could define this loosely if I liked) and could possibly produce an equally well-crafted dissertation on Ali's "unreliability", and blah blah blah. It's mission creep of the worst sort, and any topic touching on ME issues is contentious enough without it. Hmmm, maybe that's why WP:V exists? <<-armon->> 02:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, maybe that's why WP:V exists?
To permit false information to be included in articles? I doubt it.
Seriously, why are people so keen to allow a demonstrably untrue piece of information to be retained? CJCurrie 02:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
"Verifiability, not truth" is to stop WP editors from engaging in utterly pointless arguments with sources. It's not our job. As for why I'm "so keen to allow a demonstrably untrue piece of information to be retained" -it's because I'm also not interested in doing a pointless peer-review of your work. I'm lazy that way. <<-armon->> 03:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I doubt anything I say will make any difference to you one way or the other, but it's entirely our job to confirm the reliability of sources.
My interlocuters seem to have taken the absurd position that we should include material which is false, but verifiable. As they obviously aren't taking this seriously, I can't see any way forward besides mediation. CJCurrie 03:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
But what would be the point? <<-armon->> 04:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
To resolve this silliness as soon as possible. Feel free not to participate, if the prospect doesn't interest you. CJCurrie 04:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
OK then drop it. Look, at every step in the chain of dispute resolution you're going to be told pretty much the exact same thing I just did. You're only going to cause yourself stress by pursuing a lost cause like this. <<-armon->> 01:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Armon, your point about mission creep deserves careful thought. But the Tariq Ali analogy isn't a very good one. It's a rhetorical statement; it's the kind of thing a reader will already take with a grain of salt. What if Tariq Ali, in a self-published book, grossly misquoted someone? What if he wrote, relying on faulty memory in an unvetted volume, that Alan Dershowitz had argued for the sudden, unannounced destruction of entire Palestinian villages in retaliation for terrorist acts? (Dershowitz argued that the IDF should do this 24 hours after an announcement, so that residents would have the chance to evacuate). Would it be acceptable for us to simply repeat the mistake – in our own words, no less? This is the kind of analogy we have to consider.--G-Dett 03:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) See above. <<-armon->> 03:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Your opinion that the essay was "misused" is, frankly, worthless. Sorry, Flannery trumps anon Wikipedia editor. Jayjg (talk) 01:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Jay, could you explain why you're insisting on including factually inaccurate information in the article? (Hasn't anyone else looked up Szajkowski's essay by now?) CJCurrie 01:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Please review leading question. Jayjg (talk) 01:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
My question is both accurate and appropriate. Flannery makes a false statement about Szajkowski's essay, which our article repeats. It's remarkable that you and SlimVirgin would defend retention of this reference. CJCurrie 01:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
To repeat: why are you restoring factually inaccurate information to the article? CJCurrie 02:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Jay, you've chosen to revert, on the rhetorical grounds that Flannery trumps CJ. Can I ask why you've left this sentence in: "He cites historian Zosa Szajkowski, who writes that he could not find a 'single word on behalf of Jews' in the entirety of French socialist literature from 1820 to 1920," which we know now to be false? Let us bracket for the moment the question of whether Flannery belongs at all. You think he does, so you restore him. But why not at least correct the sentence? Or at the very least, quote Flannery at greater length, so the falsehood is in his words and not ours? I'm not suggesting that this would suffice; I'm just trying to understand your negotiating posture. Is the point to show maximum contempt for CJ, as your edit summaries and posts here would suggest? Or do you not trust his legwork and believe him to be lying? Or is there a categorical principle involved here for you, that Wikipedia editors are to treat as infallible any assertions made by an RS? That even a modest editorial decision to put dubious claims in quotation marks, for example, rather than in free-indirect, so as to put a buffer between the voice of Wikipedia and manifestly false statements, would constitute OR? If there is some other principle involved, could you explain it please – in reasoned, detailed sentences, and not another crypto-sarcastic diktat?--G-Dett 02:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

To Slim and Jay

I notice that neither one of you has directly addressed my arguments concerning the unsuitability of Flannery's arguments to this article. That's unfortunate, but not entirely surprising. What I find a bit more troubling is that neither of you has made any efforts to even *correct* the paragraph, based on what I've written. In its current form, the article presents Flannery's flawed scholarship as though it were accurate and credible. This is clearly unacceptable.

Seriously, does either of you honestly believe that a neutral editor (Mel Etitis, for instance, or Jmabel) would favour retention of the Flannery paragraph in light of the arguments I've presented? I doubt it.

The current Flannery paragraph is remarkably unencyclopedic, and has absolutely no business being here. I'm going to remove it again, and I'm going to request that you not restore it. If you want to return it in a revised form, please discuss it on the talk page first. CJCurrie 22:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd have no objection to asking Mel Etitis to take a look, and I'd be willing to stick by his decision. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I've already asked Mel to review the controversy. He hasn't responded yet. CJCurrie 16:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

(And no, I didn't promise to leave the paragraph in place for a full day. I said I'd leave it in place *up to* a full day, on condition that SlimVirgin take advantage of the opportunity to read my comments.) CJCurrie 22:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Stop being so pompous, please. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
HERE HERE!- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I can understand your point that the material is somewhat different than most of the article's other passages, but I think it generally follows the same line of argument that the rest of the article follows. You might disagree with the conlusions of Flannery, but wikipedia policy states that relevant material from a reputable and reliable source is permitted. I also cannot agree with everything that the author says (most of the progenitors of socialism may have been anti-Jewish religion, but I wouldn't state that most of them were necessarily anti-semitic), however I think that the jist of it is not particularly controversial.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
My feeling is that a self-published work (which for all intents and purposes the 1985 version was) which suggests "Protocols" was derived from socialist sources is not reliable. When you add in the other errors, it becomes even less so. When you add the question of relevance, it becomes profoundly unencyclopedic. (The fact that the paragraph is referenced is entirely beside the point.)
I maintain that a genuinely neutral editor would almost certainly conclude that the paragraph should be removed.
So ... how long do I have to wait before removing the paragraph again, if I'm to avoid being accused of "gaming the system"? CJCurrie 01:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It's an almost insignificant point but Flannery was not writing about the "new antisemitism". He wrote long before the rightists who inform this article had invented the term. Including the passage about him is a new low in what is already a terrible piece of POV pushing masquerading as an article. It's entirely OR to suggest that his analysis has anything whatsoever to do with the "concept" that is under "discussion" in this article. I just don't see how we can justify having a section on the "history" of something that exists mostly in the minds of contributors here and a few of the more frothy pro-Israeli commentators, when it isn't simply an epithet thrown around by those who think Israel should have carte blanche for whatever reason. Grace Note 03:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I did my best to revise it as appropriate. I have no idea who will like this or not. Possibly it only makes for a stronger argument, suggesting that Flannery saw the error of his ways. Anyway, I'm not endorsing it or anything, but simply thought it would be interesting to try it out based on CJ's new sources. Mackan79 03:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate what you're trying to do, Mackan, but I think the paragraph is beyond hope one way or the other. Why on earth should we convey *anything* from a work which posits that "Protocols" was derived from socialist sources, and has other obvious errors besides? Sorry, but I still think the paragraph has to go. CJCurrie 03:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I definitely think there's a concern that I've now given him much more weight than is appropriate. I simply think somebody had to try it to see. When I got done I had a sudden realization that probably nobody was going to like me for that one :P Mackan79 03:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Updated remarks

I had been hoping that a greater number of uninvolved and neutral editors would have provided their views on this matter by now. I'm a bit concerned that this "controversy" could soon degenerate into the usual stale bickering between SlimVirgin's supporters and SlimVirgin's opponents; a few outside voices would be useful to ensuring that this unwelcome prospect doesn't come to fruition. I thank John Kenney for weighing in on this matter, and I hope others will follow in his footsteps.

For the time being, it will probably occasion little surprise among readers that I'm not convinced by the counter-arguments of Slim and Jay. Their comments about "Original Research" are especially puzzling: the NOR policy is designed to prevent editors from *adding* unverifiable and novel research, not to prevent editors from removing obviously flawed research. I'm also uncertain as to how a source that misinterprets Szajkowski by 34 years and claims "Protocols" as socialist-derived can honestly or accurately be described as reliable. To give credit where it's due, I appreciate that Moshe hasn't resorted to any transparent policy distortions in his remarks. (Even though I disagree with his conclusions, I appreciate that Moshe is approaching this discussion in a reasonable manner.) CJCurrie 06:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that any of my compatriots have resorted to "transparent policy distortions" either.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say they did. CJCurrie 06:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

As no-one has provided a convincing reason why the paragraph should be retained, I will remove it again presently. I am fully aware of the significance of my actions, and I believe that any neutral editor reviewing this situation would conclude that the paragraph should not have been returned in the first place. I can only wonder how much longer Slim and Jay will insist on defending an obviously unsuitable source. CJCurrie 06:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Looking over it again, I had to laugh, just because the section became much more POV pro-1985-Flannery than it did undermine him (my intent wasn't to do either, but I figured by combining them it would become clear that the material didn't belong). In any case, the paragraphs are clearly out of place. This is a section on the history of New Antisemitism, not a section for controversial and dubious single-person opinions not even speaking to that topic. In the sections below, of course, that's exactly what we provide: various individual scholars' opinions on the New Antisemitism. Here, we're supposed to be providing a neutral section on the history of New Antisemitism. I'm pretty sure nobody can make the case that Flannery 1985 represents a fair and neutral chronicle of antisemitism on the left through history. Quite obviously it's two paragraphs of idiosyncratic opinion, considering that it completely reversed itself over a period of 20 years. Unless someone explains otherwise, I completely support CJCurrie's decision to remove it.Mackan79 06:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Question to Jay: Is there any basis for quoting the second less influential book rather than the first more influential book which says the opposite? Mackan79

The revised edition of a book always reflects the author's intent better, and the most recent scholarship. Jayjg (talk) 01:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Lordy, this is rich. The original version was published by a credible firm; the "revised version" was effectively self-published and is demonstrably inaccurate. I think these facts may trump the "temporal factor" somewhat. CJCurrie 01:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Question for Jay

What's the logic of re-inserting Flannery's inaccurate statement about Zosa Szajkowski?

It's fairly obvious this situation is degenerating into a full-blown edit war. I'm going to refrain from removing the paragraph again for the time being, in the hope that more uninvolved editors will weigh in shortly. I maintain that the paragraph has absolutely no business being in the article, and I'm prepared to take the matter as far as formal mediation if need be.

For the moment, I'm going to put a fact-disputed notice on the section. The current edit includes the following line: "He cites historian Zosa Szajkowski, who writes that he could not find a "single word on behalf of Jews" in the entirety of French socialist literature from 1820 to 1920." Szajkowski does not write this. CJCurrie 16:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Update: I've chosen a "dubious" notice instead. Consider it as applied to the whole paragraph. CJCurrie 16:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Update: I've filed an RfC. CJCurrie 17:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Update: SlimVirgin has decided that she may arbitrarily change the content of my RfC. (I've already reverted it). CJCurrie 04:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC) See also: [3], [4]
Update: SlimVirgin has again decided that she may arbitrarily change the content of my RfC. CJCurrie 04:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Your RfC?? SlimVirgin (talk) 14:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I know this has gotten contentious, but my suggestion would really be to try editing the passage down, and then if it doesn't work, shoot for elimination at that point. While my attempt was a little ridiculous, I could potentially see a paragraph noting Flannery's changing position. Ideally, we'd then have a counter-source, but without going into a huge amount of detail that gives this perspective undue weight. Regarding a discussion of New Antisemitism, I think a fair treatment of historical antisemitism on the Left is relevant to the subject. What we have now simply isn't fair. It's one perspective, and actually more like half a perspective. If we could make it a fair discussion, we might be able to accomodate both sides. A categorical yes or no would be nice and easy, I'm simply skeptical it's going to resolve that way either way.
One might consider what an actual encyclopedia would say on something like this: it wouldn't be quoting one scholar at length to establish the history of a subject. That's a good way to discuss theory, but it's a bad way to establish history. Mackan79 16:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I think this is a great suggestion, Mackan79. Slim has pointed out that several writers on this topic cite Flannery; if they grant him central importance, then maybe we can refer to his work by way of their use of it. Of course, the immediate thing is to make sure we're not simply repeating and disseminating the errors in Flannery's work that CJ pointed out.--G-Dett 16:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

About "Original Research"

This is the essence of Wikipedia's Original Research policy: "Articles may not contain any unpublished material, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position."

There is nothing in the policy that prevents me from challenging the reliability of a source on the talk page, nor is there anything in the policy that prevents me from removing obviously flawed information.

I hope that uninvolved parties reading this page will understand the defensive cry of "No original research" for what it is: an excuse, and a deflection. CJCurrie 19:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree – the charge here is spurious to its very core. Article pages can't have original research; talk pages can. The editorial process indeed consists of 90%+ original research, but it is rarely of this depth and judiciousness.--G-Dett 21:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I concur. Doing "original research" and presenting it on a talk page as a reason for removing material from an article cannot possibly violate any wikipedia policy. john k 23:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
John, you've always objected to the OR policy, and you're not very familar with it. We can't have editors impose their personal views on source material that's regarded by scholars of antisemitism as reliable and worth using in their own work. If other people use it, we may use it too, even if CJCurrie doesn't like it. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Slim, try to avoid strawman arguments: John hasn't "objected to OR policy," he's objected to what he sees as a fallacious invocation of it. Indeed, a central element of his objection to the current interpolation of the Flannery material (and it's an objection I've voiced here as well) is that "including Flannery and implying that his comments have anything to do with 'new antisemitism' is a 'novel synthesis,'" and therefore a violation of WP:OR. --G-Dett 15:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
As G-Dett says. Additionally, your argument here seems completely untenable. An encyclopedia article has to be selective. It has to make choices about what it talks about. There is no obligation to include any particular claims, or lengthy summaries of the work of a single scholar, particularly when such claims can be demonstrated to be tendentious and dubious by looking at the sources cited by Flannery himself. And I don't object to the OR policy, and I am perfectly familiar with it. I think the OR policy is necessary and great, but that it has to be interpreted reasonably and sanely, and that there have been some problems with interpreting "OR" very broadly. In this particular case I think that the key issue is that OR policy applies to article content, not to talk page discussion. The change to the article suggested by CJCurrie is to remove the discussion of Flannery. The article sans discussion of Flannery would not contain any original research, so there is no violation of WP:NOR. The issue is not whether a change to an article is made based on "original research." It's whether the article itself becomes a vehicle for promoting original research. Removing the Flannery stuff would not make the article a vehicle for promoting CJ's critique of Flannery. It would simply remove the Flannery stuff. It would be OR to add CJ's critique of Flannery to the article, but nobody is advocating that. Furthermore, as G-Dett says above, and I have suggested before, the inclusion of Flannery's discussion of 19th century antisemitism in the context of an article about "new antisemitism" supposedly arising after 1967, at earliest, is deeply problematic. Certainly by the standards you have expressed on many previous occasions, SV, we should have to find some sources which discuss Flannery's discussion of 19th century antisemitism, in particular, in the context of a discussion of "New Antisemitism." Either way, including the Flannery material seems a lot closer to OR than removing it would be. john k 16:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

A thought

One of the guiding principles of Wikipedia's editorial policy is that verifiability, rather than truth, is the standard for any piece of information to be included on an article page. That is, editors who wish to include *accurate* information on an article page must be able to demonstrate that the information has been published by a credible source.

This policy is meant to prevent editors from disseminating unverifiable personal knowledge (eg. "Celebrity X ran over my dog!"), and from promoting novel and untested theories (eg. "Were we too quick to dismiss phrenology?").

To judge from recent discussions, however, this principle may be open to abuse and misinterpretation. Slim, Jay et al almost seem to have inverted the principle, to suggest that demonstrably *inaccurate* information may be deemed encyclopedic if it appears in a reliable source (what?). They also seem to be suggesting that efforts to demonstrate the inaccuracy of such information are contrary to Wikipedia policy. This, of course, is nonsense.

I had hoped that neutral editors would have weighed in the Flannery controversy by now. Since that hasn't happened, I will remove the paragraph again. I make no apologies for doing this, as I emphatically do not require anyone's permission to remove demonstrably false information from the article.

To anyone who wishes to return the paragraph, I offer the following challenge: Why should we include false, misleading and irrelevant material from a book that was for all intents and purposes self-published? ("But the author wrote a classic study twenty years earlier!" is not a suitable response.) CJCurrie 01:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Please review leading question. Jayjg (talk) 01:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Should we just take this to mediation now, given that your side doesn't seem interested in debating the substance of the issue? CJCurrie 01:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

It has become obvious to me that the various disputes relating to this page cannot be resolved by further dialogue among the participants. I believe that a comprehensive mediation is the only way forward. Do others agree? CJCurrie 05:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that appears to be the only way forward. Catchpole 08:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I would agree to mediation only if we can find a mediator, formal or otherwise, who is very knowledgeable about the content policies and who is himself/herself a good editor. I'd be happy with Mel Etitis, though he's indicated he may be too busy. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree, and would be happy with Mel as well.--G-Dett 13:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Mackan79 14:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I have no problems accepting Mel. CJCurrie 03:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been run off my feet. I'll be having a closer look at the article and the debate this weekend. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that things have stalled; Mackan79 has done a sterling job characterising one side of the debate, but it's been nearly a week and there's nothing for the other side. Could someone provide a similar account of the CJCurrie, G-Dett, GraceNote, Pertn, Catchpole, Itsmejudith, and Mackan79 side please? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 11:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Help requested

I must admit that, having waded through the Talk page and the History of the article, I've got an idea as to the groupings of editors, and some notion as to some of the roots of disagreements, but (as so often happens) once battle lines are drawn they tend to become obscured by a host of unrelated or tangentially related disagreements. It would really help if one editor from each side of the divide could state here as fully and sympathetically as possible what the other side is arguing for. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I could start this for CJCurrie, G-Dett, GraceNote, Pertn, Catchpole, Itsmejudith and myself, if maybe others could fix or elaborate, meaning I would represent the Slim, Jayjg, Leifern position as well as possible. I could address 1) What to do with Flannery, 2), Whether and to what extent the "Responses" section should be changed, 3.) Scope issues relating to lead and to IJV or other material. I'll start unless someone else volunteers. Mackan79 17:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll just jump in here, it it is ok. (move it if you want to structure this in another way). I am fine with the points below, but I also think that the responses-section is a symptom of a more underlying problem: Should the article be about a concept, or about the history of contemporary antisemitism? I think many of the problems can be traced back to this. Now, facts about contemporary antisemitism are presented in a way that may implicitly imply that these facts support a hypothesis about AS today. I believe that there should be an article strictly about the debated concept and that the documentation of antisemitism and antizionism today should be presented in a different article without being related to a specific debated and politically laden concept. This would make this article less controversial as well. pertn 10:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Mel, can your mediation cover the question of the scope of the article and how it fits in a series of articles as Pertn suggests? I have suggested that there should be an article on Antisemitism in the twenty-first century and that this would take the weight off this article. Thanks. Itsmejudith 14:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Naturally I object to this kind of false distinction ("New antisemitism as a concept" vs. "Real antisemitism in the 21st century"). Opponents of the concept of "New antisemitism" inevitably try to divorce it from what they view as "Real antisemitism", reserving any blatant acts of antisemitism for an article about "the real stuff", and not about the "fake political concept intended only to deflect criticism from Israel". However, not only does this division of material assume the conclusion, but it also ignores the fact that those who insist that there is a "New antisemitism" provide example after example of activities which they think constitute it. How would it be possible to properly present their view without actually listing the specific actions that are alleged to make up its parts? Jayjg (talk) 14:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I had planned to take into account pertn's comment (which, pace Jayjg, does concern a genuine distinction: "new x normally refers to a variety of x that is novel in itself, in its proponents, in its justification, in its provenance, or something of the sort, whereas "x in modern times" doesn't, it simply refers to the same old x still going on). How the article deals with that distinction is another matter, and I'll reserve judgement. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 15:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Next stage

Do those involved accept that the characterisations of their positions and arguments are accurate and fair? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been wanting to respond briefly, but simply haven't quite put it together yet. I'm assuming we're still waiting for a comment from Slim or Jay, though? In any case, I'll try to respond today.Mackan79 16:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Slim, Jayjg, and Leifern (SJL)

I see three major issues:

  1. Flannery,
  2. The Responses section, and
  3. Scope and International Jewish Voices (“IJV”)

I'll refer to CJCurrie et al as CGM if that's ok, based on volume of commens, while noting that we may all differ on specific points.

Flannery

Regarding the Flannery discussion, the SJL position is flexible. SJL rejects the idea that Flannery should be removed altogether, because they see it as reliably sourced and relevant. It is 1.) Relevant, because it addresses the history of antisemitism on the Left, as a background for the current phenomenon, and to explain to what extent NAS is new. It is 2.) Reliably sourced because it comes from an eminent historian of antisemitism. Moreover, it represents his most recent commentary on the subject, even if previous statements diverge. Additionally, CJCurrie's specific criticisms are primarily original research, as they have not previously been published, and therefore should not be considered relevant.

Nevertheless, SJL remains open to amending the specific treatment of the Flannery material to accommodate new sources.

Responses section

Regarding the Responses section, the arguments have not been as clearly fleshed out, but fall into two broad categories: 1.) Whether specific sources are accurately characterized, and 2.) Whether the section's scope or title should be changed away from "Responses." Regarding 1.), SJL generally argues that the characterizations are accurate, noting the most relevant material to the concept of NAS. Regarding 2.), SJL argues that the section describes responses by governments and universities to the emergence of NAS, and thus is appropriately titled.[5] Moreover, SJL argues that there clearly have been such responses to – whatever we want to call it – the concept or phenomenon of NAS.[6] Thus, a section on these responses is entirely appropriate to the article on NAS.

Still, SJL have stated their openness to changing the title to something like “Actions by Governments and Groups.” [7]

Scope and IJV

Regarding the scope issue and the IJV material, the arguments again have not entirely been fleshed out. Essentially, SJL argues that CGM are trying to insert critical material which is not relevant to the concept of NAS except through their own original synthesis. Regarding IJV, it is argued that the group has not addressed NAS, but merely commented on a perceived lack of openness to criticism of Israel, primarily within the Jewish community. Specifically, the group has not addressed the confluence of antisemitism among the Left, far-Right and Islamism, the central thesis of NAS. It is not for us to decide that their statements are a criticism of NAS. Moreover, the only basis on which their comments could be made relevant in this way would be to assume the straw-man that NAS accuses all Israel-critics of being antisemitic. We should not make this assumption.

Regarding the lead and general scope, SJL argue that NAS is the concept of a new confluence of anti-Semitism among the Left, far-right and Islamism. As such, they argue that the lead is accurate, and reflects the proper scope for the article. While certain writers do focus on the issue of anti-Zionism and criticism of Israel, this is only one aspect, and is secondary. [8] The primary theory, as discussed by academic writers, regards the new alliance between previously unaligned or even hostile groups. As such, this should be the standard of relevance for the article, and is accurately and appropriately reflected in the lead.Mackan79 19:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The other side

To look at the same three issues outlined above:

  1. Flannery,
  2. The Responses section, and
  3. Scope and International Jewish Voices (“IJV”)
Flannery

It is argued:

That Flannery should not be quoted in this article, because
  • His writings pertain to an era when NAS was not under debate, so the arguments pertain to a different phenomenon than what is covered in NAS
  • The most recent book is published by the Catholic Church, which amounts to self-publishing, hence not noteworthy
  • In any case, Flannery interprets his own sources in a way that discredits his views, so they should not be included
Responses

It is argued:

That the section is mislabeled, because the various organizations do not explicitly accept the premise for NAS but instead focus on antisemitic incidents per se. A more neutral heading, one that doesn't accept the premise behind NAS, is needed.
Scope and International Jewish Voices (“IJV”)

It is argued:

That the IJV initiative is relevant to NAS, in that the IJV objects to the (alleged) practice of labeling criticism of Israel, even radical criticism, as antisemitic or the result of self-loathing.

--Leifern 18:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Leifern's comments

I can only speak for myself - Slim, Jayjg, and I have never sat down and compared notes, and I don't even know who these fellow editors are in real life.

The definition of New antisemitism is provided in the article itself, but if I were to paraphrase it: the central thesis behind those who advocate its existence is that it is antisemitism in effect and often in intent within the pretext of hostility to Israel. None of the proponents of NAS claim that mere criticism of Israel constitutes NAS; nor that it has a home on the political spectrum. Quite the contrary: they observe that whatever differences may exist on other issues, those who speak and practice NAS find common cause in demonizing Israel for no other apparent reason than that it is a Jewish state. In other words, while they observe that the confluence is there, it doesn't define the phenomenon.

I've always had problems with the term "concept." Really, we're talking about a phenomenon here that some say exists, and others don't.

I think the article at the moment suffers from the kind of bloating that is typical in contentious, unstable articles - where all sides want to include as many citations as possible. I much this prefer to revert warring, and I would warn against efforts to stop the tendency at the moment.

As with all other contentious issues, it's important to draw careful distinctions. I've corresponded privately with IJV (so I'll concede that my correspondence isn't an admissible source), but they've made it clear that they are against antisemitism on principle and agnostic on the phenomenon of NAS. What they object to is the notion that only viewpoints that fall within a certain range are acceptable in the Jewish community. Their contention is debatable in itself, but it doesn't support the argument that assertions of NAS are only intended to squash a constructive debate.

I think the issues need to be parsed: 1) Does NAS exist? Those who believe it does have evidence in favor of it, and there is lots of it. 2) Is the charge of NAS used as a means to stifle constructive debate about Israel's policies? Again, those who argue this should present evidence.

It seems absurd to me to claim that since some people possibly throw around the charge of antisemitism too readily, it can't possibly exist. But that's an editorial comment. --Leifern 13:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

That anti-semitism exists is not something that I imagine anyone would dispute. Whether there is a distinct phenomenon which ought to be described as "New Anti-semitism" is a lot more problematic, and it only confuses the issue to conflate the two questions. john k 07:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

CJCurrie's response

(i) Do those involved accept that the characterisations of their positions and arguments are accurate and fair? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I accept that Leifern's summary of my position concerning the Flannery paragraph is both fair and accurate, although it may be incomplete. Flannery does more than "interpret his own sources in a way that discredits his views". Some of his assertions, including at least one cited in this article, are demonstrably false.
Leifern's other statements under the heading of "The Other Side" also appear to be fair and accurate.

(ii) I do not, however, agree with Leifern's comments on the larger issue of defining "new antisemitism".

The most fundamental difficulty in defining "NAS" has always been the elasticity of the term itself. "New antisemitism" has been defined in different ways by different authors, and appears to have slightly a different connotation in Europe and America. As such, the term may be regarded as designating either a phenomenon or a theory depending on which definition is in use.
Some authors have used the term "New antisemitism" to describe contemporary antisemitism, with particular reference to a perceived increase in global antisemitism since 2000. Others have used the term to designate situations where aspects of "classical antisemitism" have been incorporated into criticisms of Israel. In both of these situations, the term "new antisemitism" may be accurately described as referring to a phenomonen.
This is not the only manner in which the term has been used. Since 2000, several authors have used the term "new antisemitism" to advance the view that certain positions toward (and criticisms of) the State of Israel are inherently antisemitic. This perspective often regards anti-Zionism, binationalism, "excessive and disproportionate" criticism, and "drawing a moral equivalence" between Israel and its enemies, to be prima facie evidence of antisemitic behaviour. (The last two categories are, of course, ambiguous in nature.)
The authors who promote this definition of "new antisemitism" represent one side in a much larger series of debates relating to Israel and Zionism. Many opponents, including Judith Butler, Tony Judt and Brian Klug, have argued that this interpretation of "new antisemitism" has been promoted with the intent of stifling criticism of Israel from both Jewish and non-Jewish sources. Although no proponent of the term "NAS" has ever suggested that all criticism of Israel is antisemitic, many opponents believe that their preferred range of "acceptable" criticism is so narrow as to make meaningful criticism all but impossible.
When used in this sense, "NAS" is most accurately described as referring to a theory.
Some authors have also used the term "New antisemitism" to advance the view that antisemitism is now more common (or more dangerous) on the left-wing of the political spectrum than the right. There is no agreement as to the accuracy of this position, and this usage of the term is also most accurately described as a theory.
If this article is to be improved, it must accurately reflect these different usages of the term.
I happen to agree that the term only makes sense to the extent that it describes a phenomenon. The inherent difficulty of accusing anyone of bigotry of any kind, is that it is an accusation about what is in the accused person's mind. Most people are either unaware of their own prejudice and/or make great efforts to deny it. Add to that the complexity that accusations of NAS have less to do with intent than consequence, and it's easy to get muddled up. The charge that some types of anti-Israeli rhetoric amounts to antisemitism has to do with the effect of what is said and done - those who are accused may not harbor any antisemitism when they denounce Israel, but whether they like it or not, or mean to or not, they are fueling hatred of Jews. While it is understandable that some of these critics feel unfairly put upon, the accusation leveled against them is no more "radical" than the accusation they level against those who support Israel's existence, policy, or decisions. --Leifern 13:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
You are probably aware that the concept of "antisemitism in effect, if not intent" is both controversial and multifaceted. There is a legitimate argument to be made that some critics of Israel have unwittingly given voice to statements and positions that are genuinely antisemitic, whether through naivete, historical ignorance, or a combination of the two. (My recollection is that the McShane Report addressed this particular issue in its assessments of contemporary antisemitism in Britain.) The problem is that some proponents of the term "new antisemitism" have used the argument of "antisemitism in effect, if not intent" to cover a wide array of positions toward Israel, some of which have no connection to "classical antisemitism" whatsoever. Opponents of the term have, understandably in my view, responded that this is (i) an unfair accusation, and (ii) a trivialization of the term "antisemitism".
Once this article is improved, it will have to deal with this issue in a fair and sophisticated manner. CJCurrie 00:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

(iii) Leifern writes: I think the issues need to be parsed: 1) Does NAS exist? Those who believe it does have evidence in favor of it, and there is lots of it. 2) Is the charge of NAS used as a means to stifle constructive debate about Israel's policies? Again, those who argue this should present evidence.

With respect, I do not believe this is the correct approach to fixing this article. It is not within our mandate to determine whether or not "NAS" exists or whether it has been used to stifle constructive debate. What's important is that some published sources have articulated the former view, while others have articulated the latter. Our task is to summarize both positions in a fair and accurate manner. CJCurrie 03:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't mean to imply that this article should resolve these issues; but what I did mean to say is that the article shouldn't confuse them. --Leifern 13:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
If you mean that the article should distinguish the various usages of the term, I agree. CJCurrie 00:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Leifern gives a good summary of the concerns about the "Responses" section. As regards the IJV, the point is not that we think it's related to NAS but that the sources do.--G-Dett 19:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Mackan79's response

Leifern and CJCurrie get the main points above, so just a few thoughts:

  1. Re Flannery, I think there is a problem with using Flannery's quotations of other authors. When looking for material, I think we should avoid second-hand quotations where contested.
  2. Re Flannery, I also see a problem with using controversial opinions in what is supposed to be a neutral history section. While much of the article documents controversial opinions, and appropriately, I think that becomes less appropriate in a neutral history section. (Thinking particularly about the "the further left one goes the more the antisemitism" statements here.)
  3. Re scope, I think CJCurrie lays it out quite well. I'd note this is precisely what Klug argues, that there are 3 different things being described as NAS. I agree this needs to be clarified, while also allowing that some consider it all the same phenomenon.
  4. If we clarified that, I also think it would help the problem with the Responses section, that it currently seems to be offered in support of the controversial NAS "theory" through our arguable equivocation. If we acknowledged the potential distinction, that issue might also be resolved without having to do much more.
  5. Re scope and IJV, this is my main issue. Essentially, I think SJL ignores the second main route of relevancy to this article, of the opposition, which argues that the NAS theory stifles fair debate. Interestingly, our article clearly acknowledges this position in the discussion section, where it's well represented. Yet, with responses and evidence, it seems to be disregarded. I think the opposition argument should be considered relevant for both.
  6. Finally, as G-Dett points out, that analysis may not be necessary, if we just focus on the connections drawn by the sources. At the same time, I'd simply note that our use of Flannery seems to be based on exactly this kind of editorial determination. Thus, I guess I'd argue for a broader standard of relevancy, in which both Flannery and IJV could be considered relevant, on their own merits, and whether or not the term "NAS" is explicitly invoked. Indeed, I think this is consistent with the aim of this article to discuss the NAS concept (including theory and phenomenon) rather than simply the term, an aim which then requires some editorial consideration. Mackan79 07:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediation?

May I request an update on the status of our mediation process? I think it may be time to move to the next stage, notwithstanding that certain editors have chosen not to participate in the preliminary discussions. CJCurrie 01:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

A bout of flu kept me in bed for four or five days, and I'm still recovering, though on my feet again. I'm now going through all the materials. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 12:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Status of Mediation?

What is the status of Mel's mediation for this article?--G-Dett 22:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Defamatory Caricatures

From the Carlos Latuff - Ariel Sharon (Israeli PM) series.]] i'm interested in adding to the size of the defamatory caricatures (perhaps create a subsection for it) and introduce this one when the article is open for editing:


Jaakobou 10:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

These cartoons appear to be vicious and nasty attacks on Ariel Sharon. Their connection to antisemitism is not clear. I have seen many cartoons which depict political figures as monsters, regardless of their religion or ethnicity. Andrew Levine 01:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. Do you have a reliable source that says that those cartoons are an example of "new asntisemitism"? // Liftarn
Donald Rumsfeld compared Hugo Chávez to Hitler and nobody talked about "anti-Venezuelanism". The US imposes a selective boycott on Cuba, but not on Saudi Arabia, whose human rights violations are far worse, and no one talks about "anti-Cubanism." Count me among those who are unclear that the Sharon cartoons are intrinsically antisemitic.--Abenyosef 02:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

GA nom

I'm tempted to fail this nomination as this article is being rocked by edit warring (I'm really surprised to see such an active discussion); it looks nowhere the stability required in WP:WIAGA (criteria 5). However, I don't like to pass/fail articles, so I'll let someone else judge. It may die down by the time that someone gets around to look over it. Hbdragon88 05:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I assumed the undated GA nominee template was left over from the previous nomination. —Ashley Y 06:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't going off the GAC list - I just got here and saw that a {{GAnominee}} template. Did someone fail it and forget to replace it with {{FailedGA}}? Hbdragon88 06:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, there is a FailedGA as well as the GAnominee. —Ashley Y 06:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah. It was nominated on 21 February 2007 [9] and has not yet been acted on. Hbdragon88 06:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ashley, please answer this question ...

... because this is the third time I've asked it. I've looked at the David Aaronovitch article [10] you offered as a source for the term "new antisemitism" being used purely as a pejorative political term, but I can't see where he says that. Can you give us the quote, please? SlimVirgin (talk) 18:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I can hardly take you seriously after you misrepesented me on this topic. In any case, since Category:Pejorative political terms has been deleted, this discussion is moot. All that's left is questions about bad-faith behaviour, which are better discussed on user talk pages than here. —Ashley Y 19:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that was lively

What are we arguing about, again? Whether "new antisemitism" is a "pejorative political term"? Henry Kissinger said, "University politics are so bitter precisely because the stakes are so small." Is there room for compromise here? Can we look to Wikipedia policy and find a resolution? By golly, we can. If you add something to an article and someone challenges it, you have to provide reliable sourcing. Not something you made up in school one day. If it's "pejorative," then you need to prove that some notable opinion-maker described it as "pejorative," or something similar. Dino 12:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dean, I think the point is moot now because the article on "pejorative political terms" has been deleted. A similar article on "political epithets," which was created 2 1/2 years ago, was similarly deleted by its owners last week when it became clear to them that there was copious reliable-source documentation describing "anti-semite" as a political epithet. The decision was to sink the whole ship rather than letting aboard any ideological impurities.
Your point about small stakes is well-taken. Just so you know, though, one reason there's such debate over something like the term "pejorative political term" is because the more fundamental debate here is whether NAS should be treated as a phenomenon, or as a tendentious and divisive political discourse, or both.--G-Dett 13:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Please quit this outrageous trolling. Everyone is tired of having to read your carping. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I just checked your contribs again hoping to see an improvement from the last time, but you've still only made 158 edits to articles. From now on, I'm going to remove any posts of yours from this talk page that aren't directly related to content, and if you revert me, I'll request admin intervention. You've been poisoning this page for long enough. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
What "content" does this latest ad hominem blast from you relate to, Slim?
As long as you're trolling through my history (while ignoring my substantive questions here), you might take a closer look at those 158 article edits. I think you'll find that a great number of them were instantly reverted by you, Jayjg, Isarig, HumusSapiens, et al, accompanied by logically specious and often personally insulting edit summaries, sending me over to the talk-page for endlessly exasperating exchanges with your lock-step POV-crew.
If you wish to have me monitored or filtered or whatever, have some neutral party with credibility do it. You are obviously not in a position to determine which of my comments are substantive, given your personal, ideological, and often visceral opposition to me. Manipulating Ashley's posts in order to alter her meaning was a serious matter, and taking it upon yourself to become my minder and censor will not improve things, Slim.--G-Dett 19:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Slim, G-Dett was just responding to a query. I know your take is not her take, but I don't think the vague threats are very helpful. If you think it's appropriate, you're free to answer Dino's query yourself. If you don't think it's important, you should probably just leave it... —Ashley Y 20:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
(Also, deleting the response to your own attack is hardly fair.) —Ashley Y 20:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

This talk page is only for discussing edits to the article. For everything else, please use the user talk pages, or if necessary dispute resolution. Tom Harrison Talk 20:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Could we be just a little bit nicer to each other, people? Dino 21:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Category

So given that Category:Pejorative political terms is moot, should we put this article in Category:Political terms? —Ashley Y 21:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

In what sense is it a political term, Ashley? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm. In what sense is it not a political term? Particularly since it describes something that is "coming from three political directions: the political left, far-right, and Islamism"? Dino 21:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I tried to establish whether it was just "pejorative" (and not "political term") that was being objected to earlier, but kept getting disrupted. But will we need reliable sources that claim that it is a political term, or is it as you suggest obvious? —Ashley Y 21:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
In light of all the accusations that have been made lately, I want to make it clear that I have nothing but the greatest respect for everyone on this Talk page and their political and religious beliefs. But really, why must every square inch of this article become a battlefield? Let's all put away our rhetorical daggers, have a nice cup of coffee (or tea, or glass of wine) and decompress. Smoke 'em if you get 'em. Dino 22:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "political term," Ashley? Is "racism" a political term, for example? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Something with a particular meaning not ordinarily implied by the words. In this case, does "new antisemitism" refer to any new antisemitism, or is it a term that refers to a particular "wave"? A simple test: can it be replaced with "recent antisemitism", or would that be a different term? —Ashley Y 22:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
As has been explained before, old-style (traditional theological or pseudo-"biological") antisemitism isn't generally relevant to this article, no matter how recently it has occurred -- unless, of course, there's an apparent meeting of ideological opposites or a paradoxical convergence of long-term political enemies based on a commonality of Jew-hating (in which case old-school anti-semitism may then become relevant to new style antisemitism). AnonMoos 22:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
For my part, I find it fascinating that the viciously racist (thankfully tiny) organizations of the far right, such as Stormfront.org, have started buying headscarves that are marketed by left-wingers in the colors of the Palestinian flag, showing their solidarity with anti-Zionism. "A paradoxical convergence of long-term political enemies, based on a commonality of Jew-hating"? Could it be possible? Dino 23:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Does "new antisemitism" refer particularly to this phenomenon, implying characteristics not shared with earlier expressions of antisemitism, or is it synonymous with, say, "recent antisemitism"? —Ashley Y 23:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
No, it is not synonymous with "recent antisemitism". As has been explained before, old-style (traditional theological or pseudo-"biological") antisemitism isn't generally relevant to this article, no matter how recently it has occurred -- unless, of course, there's an apparent meeting of ideological opposites or a paradoxical convergence of long-term political enemies based on a commonality of Jew-hating (in which case old-school anti-semitism may then become relevant to new style antisemitism). AnonMoos 00:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that would depend on who's using the term. Intent and state of mind ... Dino 23:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, as used in the article? —Ashley Y 23:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Again, there appears to be more than one school of thought, illustrated by the burgeoning number of thoughtful-looking scholars whose portraits now adorn the article. Dino 23:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I'd like to say that this is a splendid article. Lovely layout with the quotations and photos, very nicely researched and sourced, with good neutral encyclopedic language throughout. A fine candidate for GA review. It would be a shame if we blew it by infighting, and losing on the "stable content" technicality, wouldn't it? Dino 23:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

So some scholars are using a political term with a specific meaning, and other simply mean "recent antisemitism", then? Is that correct? Are the scholars talking about two different things, albeit related? —Ashley Y 23:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

"Yes" to the first and second questions; "No" to the third. (Just my opinion of course.) I believe that in many cases the "old antisemitism" mutated into something more virulent. It isn't "old antisemitism" making a more recent appearance; it's something different, and more cunning. It camouflages itself as a "progressive" sympathy with the "noble struggles" of the Palestinian people against their "imperialist oppressors," who just happen to be Jews. What a coincidence.
And it is so very stylish, in certain academic circles, to substitute the word "Zionist" or perhaps "Likudnik" for "Jew" and say whatever bigoted thing one has always wanted to say. Dino 04:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Not only in academic circles, but on Wikipedia too. An editor who has posted a lot of criticism of "Zionists" recently e-mailed me to say "It will be great pleasure to kill you, hope to See you soon you mother fucker dirty filthy Jew," and "You are a little worm! That is why people hate the Jews, you are a bunch of dirty worms and hopefully we get rid of all of you soon." SlimVirgin (talk) 21:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Completely arbitrary & capricious section break #1

So do you think that this article should cover specifically this "something more virulent", or should it widen to any recent antisemitism (which may not have the cunning differences and the camouflage and so on)? —Ashley Y 04:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a complex issue. For some people who express antisemitic beliefs, or vandalize Jewish cemeteries, "old antisemitism" may be the most accurate term. For others, who express anti-Zionism as a thinly disguised expression of hatred for Jews, "new antisemitism" might be a better fit. I'm not enough of a student of social and political trends to be comfortable with any generalizations.
On another note, the use of more than four colons to indent one's post can make the page difficult to read for someone with impaired vision. They tend to use a "large type" setting on their Windows control panels and, as a result, a post that was indented with seven or eight colons becomes a column of words strung up along the right-hand side of the screen. I've tried to remove such colons where possible, while leaving enough to clearly distinguish between people's posts with the "stairstepping" effect. I hope no one objects. I'm just trying to make the page more readable for those with impaired vision. If any of you is willing to help by limiting your use of these annoying colons, I'd appreciate it. Dino 18:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to make another point, if I may. Suppose the "anti-Zionists" get what they want. In fact, suppose they get everything they could possibly wish for. Suppose all foreign aid from the United States to Israel is cut off and the UN revokes Israel's right to exist, declaring that their very presence on the land they now occupy is a violation of international law, enforceable under the authority of Article VII of the UN Charter (the article which authorizes the use of military force).
Does anyone believe for a moment that every Jew in Israel would quietly get on a plane for Palm Beach? Does anyone believe for a moment that they would even be allowed to do so if they were inclined? They would be immediately attacked; and they would defend their land to the last bullet.
Once that last bullet is expended, the uninterrupted history of Palestinian attacks that deliberately targeted Israeli women and children should be able to predict for you what would happen next. So don't let anyone claim that "anti-Zionism" has nothing to do with "antisemitism." If they got their way the result would rival the Holocaust. Dino 18:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
OK! But, um, to get back to the "political term" issue, you seem to be saying that "old antisemitism" and "new antisemitism" are indeed political terms. Is that correct? If this article were titled "recent antisemtism" instead of "new antisemitism", would that be just as good? (Not that I'm suggesting moving it.)
People have mucked about with my comments so much I'm not sure what to think. But I'm happy to stop at four colons. Also I can outdent back to the same level as an earlier comment of mine rather than indent to your indent, if you prefer. —Ashley Y 21:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about the rant there. Like stray Rottweiler puppies, people often adopt ideas that seem warm and fuzzy, without considering what those ideas will be like when they grow up. Think these things through to their logical conclusion.
But, um, to get back to the "political term" issue, you seem to be saying that "old antisemitism" and "new antisemitism" are indeed political terms. Is that correct?
Well yes, of course. The lead of the article acknowledges that "new antisemitism" has been "coming from three political directions: the political left, far-right, and Islamism." And although my edit to the article indicates that the origins of what we now call "old antisemitism" go back thousands of years, before we developed the political concepts of "right" and "left," it was often associated with the political right in the past couple of centuries.
Stairstepping the comments back and forth seems to work. It clearly distinguishes between one post and the next without using too many indents. Thanks for your concern on that count. Dino 22:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Completely arbitrary & capricious section break #2

We can debate all we like whether "new antisemitism" is a political term. I concur with Ashley that the answer is obviously yes. The discursive context for virtually every invocation of "new antisemitism" is political debate about Israel/Palestine. Those who use the term or advocate for it all come from one "side" of the public debate about the I/P conflict; those who mistrust, critique, or dismiss the term all come from the other. Tell me your thoughts on "new antisemitism" and I'll tell you your politics on I/P. This is enough to settle the matter in my eyes.\

That black-and-white thinking shows how little you know about the subject. In fact, people on various sides of the Arab-Israeli conflict debate hold a range of nuanced views about NAS. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Try to avoid the personal barbs, Slim, especially if you're still contemplating blanking my responses to them. I am well aware of the range of views and such nuance as exists within them. Indeed the range of verbs I used in my one-sentence overview – use, advocate, mistrust, critique, dismiss – were chosen precisely in order to convey that range and nuance (they succeed admirably at this, if I do say so myself). And in the paragraph below I give further examples of the subtle differences in opinion. In short, if you're seeing black-and-white you're not reading very carefully, or are color-blind. The point remains that all of these nuanced attitudes toward the term "new antisemitism" sort into two large categories – loosely speaking, approval and disapproval – which appear to be largely if not wholly determined by political orientation.--G-Dett 17:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
There's no point in debating with you, because all you do is repeat yourself. I wonder whether you ever admit even the possibility that you're wrong about something. SlimVirgin (talk)

When you're editing this page, and being inundated by comments from a few of the "one-topic" editors that haunt it, it's always best to keep the template at the top of the page in mind. Jayjg (talk) 18:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The one about trolling? Indeed. Any chance either of you will consider the substantive point of the post you're interrupting?--G-Dett 18:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I simply have to say these attacks are completely ridiculous. Jay, I'm pretty sure what you and Slim are thinking about is the requirements for becoming a sysop on WP, not for whether someone's edits should be treated in good faith. Now, to be taken seriously, you're saying a person has to spend several hours a day here to show they're editing on many different subjects all at the same time? What is this, the last effort to dissuade absolutely anybody with expert knowledge from sharing it on WP?
Regarding the category, I'm simply indifferent, because I tend to dislike all of the extended categorization. I also think people overestimate the impact of a category at the bottom of the page. I'd probably put it somewhere like Category:Political_science_terms if anywhere. "Political theories" if there were a category might be suitable. These broadest of categories "Political terms" just tend to concern me across the board. Mackan79 15:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[comment interrupted; resuming from "This is enough to settle the matter in my eyes"] But if others dispute this, then we can't rely on common sense to settle the question, so we turn to WP:ATT. For the purposes of this article, it's a political term simply because many of our reliable sources describe it as such. For some, like Brian Klug, the phenomenon itself is a political one, for which "New Antisemitism" is a misnomer. For others like Finkelstein, the existence of the named thing is debatable, but the use of the term "New Antisemitism" in itself is a political phenomenon.

Slim asked if "racism" should similarly be listed in the category of political terms. The answer is no. Of course there can be and are plenty of politically-motivated accusations of racism, but the term itself has almost universal legitimacy, codified by extensive use over a long period of time, in a huge variety of discourses, and – crucially – with no particular overriding political context.

On the other hand, more specific terms such as "institutional racism," "environmental racism," "reverse racism," etc. could certainly be called political terms. They are indeed much more closely analogous to "new antisemitism," because each to some extent has a political view embedded within it; and in each of these cases, those who are opposed to that political view tend to dispute the validity of the term itself.

The fallacy to avoid here is thinking that a term isn't political simply because we share the political view embedded within it. I have deep reservations about the semantic legitimacy of "new antisemitism" as it's currently used, mild reservations about "reverse discrimination," none whatsover about "institutional racism." The reservations of others will distribute differently. But these are all political terms. Pretending that our own politics transcend politics is just, well, politics.--G-Dett 23:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

As there appear to be no objections to the above, I've added the relevant category.--G-Dett 19:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
The entire Talk: page above didn't disappear just because people weren't responding to your re-iterations of old arguments. Please find reliable sources which clearly indicate that "New antisemitism" is solely a "political term", keeping in mind that Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category.. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 19:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Jay, I challenge you to point me to anywhere on this page where my argument[11] was previously made and answered. I think you're bluffing. It would be easier to assume your good faith if it weren't for your unbelievable (in every sense) accusation of trolling. I posted a detailed case for NAS as a political term.[12] It was absolutely, entirely, unequivocally free of any trace of personal rancor or provocation. I even responded thoughtfully and in detail therein to a question Slim had asked and no one had yet answered. You dismissed this post as "trolling," and backed up Slim when she cut into it with a purely personal attack. Bear in mind that phony accusations of trolling are themselves a form of trolling, Jay. In any event, an editor of your experience should know better than to violate WP:PA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:AGF in so gross a fashion. Please consider either engaging serious arguments in a serious way, on this page, or better yet, self-reverting your latest revert to the article itself.

Completely arbitrary & capricious section break #3

The one substantive point you've made to me in this exchange is your claim that for something to be listed as a political term it must be "solely" a political term. That's obviously false, Jay. Even a cursory look at the list ("Bottom feeder," "Ukrainian holocaust," "Lustration," "Lobbying," "Stalking Horse," "Heartland," "Ideology," "Talking Point") will tell you that.--G-Dett 19:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Instead of arguing, please start attributing. And keep in mind, Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category. Jayjg (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Please review the reliable sources we use in this article, Jay, and then review the second paragraph of the innocuous post that precipitated your personal attack and phony accusation of "trolling." That represents the tip of the iceberg; there is, as you well know, a wealth of reliable source material describing "new antisemitism" as a political term.--G-Dett 20:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm sure there are some people that claim it is. Not that you've actually quoted any of them. Jayjg (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
If you're "sure" that there are indeed reliable sources describing the term "new antisemitism" as a political term, then what is it you're asking me for? What is the hold-up here? You want me to go fetch all those shiny colored easter eggs in plain view?--G-Dett 21:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Completely arbitrary & capricious section break #4

Did I say that? Don't you ever get tired to begging the question? Jayjg (talk) 21:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you that I should attribute, implying that I hadn't? Yes. Did you say that you were "sure" that the RS-material I said was there, was indeed there waiting to be attributed? Yes. Did you say anything about easter eggs? No. That was a metaphor.--G-Dett 21:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
You haven't attributed, and I haven't said I was "sure" that there was RS material there. Some people does not mean reliable sources; two of the main people making that claim are you and Ashley Y. Read me carefully, quote me correctly, and stop making the fallacy of many questions. Jayjg (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I wrote that "there is, as you well know, a wealth of reliable source material describing "new antisemitism" as a political term," to which you responded, "Well, I'm sure there are some people that claim it is. Not that you've actually quoted any of them." Now you're saying the "them" in that last sentence means me and Ashley. That you were faulting me for not quoting myself and Ashley. You're not making any sense, Jay, and your high-horse has a lame leg.--G-Dett 22:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't you get bored? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes.--G-Dett 21:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Careful there, G-Dett. I've seen the same sort of subtle needling tempt a truly good writer into self-destruction. (Of course, it didn't help matters that he had a short fuse.) Step back from the brink, have a nice cup of tea, take a deep breath. Dino 21:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
G-Dett still has only 162 edits to the encyclopedia in 10 months, yet thinks it's okay to spend his time abusing editors on talk pages. It's time to start creating and writing articles, instead of baiting. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm flattered by your attentions, Slim, though I wish they took the form of substantive engagement rather than running edit-tallies and other surveillance. You're wrong, of course, that trying patiently to get clearance on talk pages for what should be minor common-sense improvements to articles constitutes "baiting." (It represents, rather, my unwavering respect for WP:Consensus even when I'm forced to deal with ideological edit-warriors with admin powers). You're right, though, that it's time to start creating and writing some articles. You'll be pleased to know I'm writing a batch of articles on H.R. 3077 (cum 509) and so-called "Title VI" reform. Thanks for the implicit vote of confidence.--G-Dett 22:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Of course, one should have at least 50,000 edits to the encyclopedia and be an admin before one can spend her time abusing editors on talk pages... :-) —Ashley Y 21:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It's rather strange of you to try to compare an editor who does little else but abuse editors on a tiny set of Talk: pages to one who has created 4 featured articles, numerous policies, has tens of thousands of good edits on thousands of articles, etc. And it doesn't really have to do with experience on Wikipedia. For example, one could have been editing since (to pick a random date) November 2003, and still apparently be unaware of basic policy like WP:ATT and WP:NPOV. Jayjg (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course. One should have 50,000 edits to the encyclopedia, be an admin, create four featured articles and numerous policies. Then one can spend her time abusing editors on talk pages. —Ashley Y 21:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, so is it self-evident and uncontroversial that "new antisemitism" is a political term? —Ashley Y 21:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I would have to say "yes." It is a political term, among other things. Cheers. Dino 21:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I would also say yes. What do other people think? —Ashley Y 21:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

There have been objections so you'll need to find a reliable source per WP:A. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
You would say "yes", Ashley? That's a shock. In any event, I don't agree, others don't as well. So, it's controversial. In any event we're not going through this again, Ashley. First attribute your claim. If you can do that, then we'll discuss whether it is clear and self-evident, or controversial. Not another word until proper attribution of your claim. And none of the bad faith bogus attributions your tried to do before, as with Aaronovitch etc. Start quoting reliable sources. Jayjg (talk) 21:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree that unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial, it should not be put into the category. I'm wondering if there's consensus that it's self-evident and uncontroversial. At this point there isn't, of course, but perhaps other editors might care to comment? —Ashley Y 21:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Going by the evidence, what is "self-evident and uncontroversial" is that there does in fact exist a form of antisemitism which uses Anti-Zionism as a fig leaf. I don't see where anybody seriously disputes that. Klug certainly doesn't, even if he disputes the terminology and would "draw the line" much more narrowly, and neither does Finkelstein, even if he believes it's "self-inflicted". I think categorizing it as a merely some sort of political term is therefore a way of undermining it in much the same way as creationists attempt to portray evolution as "just a theory". In any case, it still needs RS attribution. <<-armon->> 01:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It certainly needs RS attribution if it's not self-evident and uncontroversial. But does "political term" delegitimise the concept at all? —Ashley Y 01:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Roots

By the way, I've restored Slim's revert of my modifications to the second paragraph. Slim, let's talk. "Old antisemitism" was "largely," but not entirely associated with the political right for the past 200-odd years; but its roots do indeed go far, far back into the mists of time, thousands of years in fact, before there were such concepts as a political "right" or "left." Is there any part of this statement that you find inaccurate? If so, please point it out. Thanks. Dino 21:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't change the lead without getting agreement on talk first. The sentence is a little odd. You'll need a source showing that classical antisemitim "has roots going back thousands of years," and the addition of "before the development of such concepts as a political 'left' and 'right'" is a clear example of OR, and kind of odd-sounding. Also, it doesn't really have anything to do with NAS. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I included a link to several sources in my recent comment, and I don't know why that link didn't survive your edit. Here it is again. [13] The earliest appears to be an ancient Greek reference to ancient Egyptian antisemitism (3rd century BC to be precise). The notion of a "left" and "right" in politics is only around 200 years old, and any student of political science would find it obvious that the concept of antisemitism predates "left and "right" (and politics) by a factor of about ten. The policy on WP:OR permits obvious inferences to be stated. Dino 21:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Those references to ancient antisemitism are attributed in the text, and would have to be here too, and that's not appropriate for a lead about NAS. Also, WP:NOR doesn't permit inferences of the kind you want to make; you would definitely need a source. However, regardless of that, it's not about NAS so it's not appropriate for the lead. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
If not in the lead, where should it go? And does anyone else have an opinion about this? Dino 21:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
The lead should probably be about what is unique about New antisemitism. For example, the Racial antisemitism lead doesn't mention that antisemitism of some sort (primarily religious antisemitism) dates back thousands of years. Jayjg (talk) 22:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Political neologisms

It would seem it also belongs here.--G-Dett 22:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:ATT, WP:CAT. Jayjg (talk) 22:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think it (rather obviously) belongs there as well. If we can get consensus that it's self-evident and uncontroversial, then WP:ATT will be satisfied. —Ashley Y 22:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I would say that the assertion that it is a political neologism is absurd and offensive on its face. --Leifern 23:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh dear. How do you feel about merely "political term", is that self-evident and uncontroversial? —Ashley Y 23:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that new antisemitism isn't political at all - it refers to a form of bigotry that shrouds itself in political rhetoric. To describe New Antisemitism as political is to hijack the premise (again) for the article. --Leifern 02:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
You beat me to it. It's only "political" in the sense that it describes a form of antisemitism which uses ideological or "political" justifications. By this logic, religious antisemitism is some kind of a "religious" term and/or epithet. <<-armon->> 03:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Do you think hostility towards a race or nation is in general a political topic? —Ashley Y 03:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
In general I think it's sociological, and there's points where it overlaps, but I don't think we should be giving primacy to a POV which throws everything in the "political" basket, because it is a POV, even if it seems self-evident. Try this question: Do you think that racism only exists if it manifests itself politically? Test your answer against the notion that the personal is the political. <<-armon->> 05:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it a sociological term, then? We could put potentially put it in Category:Sociological terms, but looking at the two categories, the "political terms" one would seem to be a better fit. I think racism that manifests non-politically is still a political topic. But you disagree? —Ashley Y 05:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This going off track because my opinions are irrelevant. I'm simply pointing out to you that the notion that "the personal is the political" is a POV. <<-armon->> 22:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Leifern, are you offended that "Islamophobia" is included there?--G-Dett 23:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't even know what the term means, so I can't really discuss it. But I certainly don't think that charges of bigotry directed at Moslems, Arabs, or any other group can or should be dismissed as anything political. --Leifern 02:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Please. Let's be nice. Jayjg, you didn't answer my question. You just repeated Slim's claim that it shouldn't be in the lead. If not in the lead, where should it go? Don't say "nowhere." Any article about a complex, advanced subject needs a little background for the sixth grade students who will be reading it. Dino 00:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that comparing Islamophobia to new anti-Semitism is like comparing apples and oranges. All one has to do is look at the "Further Reading" headings in both articles to see how little has been written about Islamophobia in comparison to New anti-Semitism. Although both the concepts are similar (discrimination against a religion), the application of those concepts are not. This brings up the question of how do we separate a political neologism from a word used to describe new/recent observable phenomena? Is Holocaust denial a political neologism? How about global warming? It can be argued that Darwinism has become a political neologism. So much has been writen and observed with all of the above subjects that I would argue that they all have become more than just political neologisms and are now technical, scholarly terms for observable behavior. Islamophobia has the potential to become a technical, scholarly term, just as many other political neologisms do, but I don't think it has proven itself yet. Reasonable people can disagree on this subject. --GHcool 00:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Do you think that "new antisemitism" is at least a political term? And if so, is that self-evident and uncontroversial? —Ashley Y 00:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'm a little baffled by your post, GHCool. "New antisemitism" can't be compared to "Islamophobia," but it can be compared to Darwinism? I don't think this is a "reasonable-people-can-disagree" kind of thing; I think what you just wrote doesn't make sense. NAS and Islamophobia are controversial coinages for just about exactly the same reasons. Those who oppose the phrase "Islamophobia" (say, Oliver Kamm) do so because they think it's a way of silencing criticism of Islamism, fundamentalism, etc. The parallel is very strong indeed. But Darwinism? Holocaust denial? Global warming? These are scientific and historical (not for the most part political) issues about which scholarship is all but unanimous. If you're saying "New Antisemitism" enjoys a consensus of legitimacy comparable to any of these theories, that's just demonstrably false. And if you're saying proponents of these theories describe them as political phenomena the way proponents of NAS do, that's also false.--G-Dett 01:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand me, G-Dett, or, perhaps more likely, I was not clear enough. The comparison to Darwinism, etc. was not to say that they share equal status. I was saying that it can be argued that Darwinism, etc. are political terms since it is a politically hot topic. I would disagree with that classification of Darwinism, Holocaust denial, and global warming because they are all pretty much established facts that describe observable behavior independently of their "political label." New anti-Semitism is not on the same level as Darwinism or even Holocaust denial in terms of its internationally recongized validity, however, I would argue that on the continuum of political term (such as axis of evil) to established fact (such as Darwinism), new anti-Semitism would be much, much closer to established fact than Islamophobia. Reasonable people can disagree to where exactly new anti-Semitism lies on that continuum. --GHcool 06:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
GHcool, "political neologisms" doesn't mean dubious theoretical propositions, polemically hot topics or faddish bits of slang. (Given that several here seem to think it does, I can understand their opposition to using it for NAS). Political neologism just means a relatively recent coinage for a relatively recently observed or theorized political phenomenon. Such as the discursive convergence of contemporary leftist anti-globalization and anti-Zionism with traditional right-wing xenophobia and conspiracy theories – a political convergence identified by a spate of recent books and articles as "new antisemitism."
There's no "continuum" between political neologisms and scientific facts. Some political neologisms are journalistic in nature or refer to ephemeral demographic data and so seem to have a built-in shelf-life ("soccer mom"), while others like "plausible deniability" or "institutional racism" represent conceptual breakthroughs and appear to have become a part of our permanent lexicon.
In short, "political" isn't a synonym for "controversial" or debatable. Global warming and Darwinism are scientific terms around which political controversies have arisen; but that doesn't make them "political" terms in their own right.--G-Dett 19:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Completely arbitrary & capricious section break #5

I do not think that "institutional racism" is a political neologism (at least not anymore). New anti-Semitisim may have been a political neologism at one point, but it has now entered mainstream academic thought in the same way that "institutional racism" has. Therefore, NAS is not a political neologism even if it once was one. It was a political neologism that grew and developed into a fully formed sociological phenomenon similarly to how a fetus grows and develops into a fully formed human being. --GHcool 21:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
"Institutional racism" was coined by the Black Panthers. You're probably right that it's graduated by now from its "neologism" stage. "This category is for terms that have entered political jargon since approximately 1980; their first use may be earlier, but their widespread use should not be," is what the category heading for "political neologisms" says. Was "new antisemitism" in widespread use before 1980? Should we do a Lexis-Nexis search?--G-Dett 21:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with that definition of political neologism. 1980 was 27 years ago. I think we can all agree that a neologism must certainly have been coined less than 27 years ago. I suggest 4-6 years would be more appropriate for making distinctions between political "neologisms" and political "terms." --GHcool 23:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
You want to change the definition of political neologism on Category:Political neologisms? From terms that came into common use 27 years to terms that came into use 4-6 years ago. According to our article, "the term [NAS] 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." So with "political neologisms" redefined, would NAS no longer fit?--G-Dett 00:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I would like to change the definition of political neologism to 4-6 years. Reasonable people can disagree about whether NAS is a political neologism or not. I happen to believe it is not a neologism. It has been 7 years since Arafat's rejection of the Camp David 2000 Summit and the beginning of the second Intifada. --GHcool 00:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:ATT, WP:CAT. The claim that is it a "political neologism" must be attributed to reliable sources, and it must be self-evident that it belongs in that category. Neither condition is satisfied. Jayjg (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Both are in fact satisfied. If GHcool wants to rewrite the category definition itself, in order to prevent NAS from taking its natural place there, that's a different matter. If you're determined to keep it out, Jay, I'd follow his lead.--G-Dett 18:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I just rewrote the category definition to say 2001 instead of 1980. I did not do this "in order to prevent NAS from taking its natural place there" (NAS was coined roughly around that time). I did it because it makes sense. A 27 year old term cannot be a neologism. --GHcool 21:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Easter Eggs

You can gather these from virtually anywhere. Like I said, they're in plain view. Allan Brownfield describes the term as a "form of political blackmail." Cotler describes the phenomenon as "political antisemitism," which Taguieff in turn calls a "new political-intellectual conformism." Bernard Lewis writes, "This is where the third phase of anti-Semitism arises, which for want of a better term we might call political-cum-ideological Judeophobia." Zipperstein thinks it's better described as "anti-Israelism," which he says is informed by "a much distorted, simplistic, but this-worldly political analysis devoid of anti-Jewish bias." Peter Beaumont of the Guardian says of those who use the term that "what they are talking about is the criticism in the media and political classes of Europe of the policies of Sharon." Conrad Black's wife, for her part, traces the phenomenon to "London's political salon scene."

Shall I go on?

Can someone – Jay, Liefern, anyone – explain to me the strong objection to linking this article to any category of terms that includes the word "political" in it? It's hard for me to understand this resistance, given how consistently the RS's describe NAS as a political phenomenon (sometimes they link it to the failure of Oslo, sometimes to ideological by-products of globalization and anti-colonialism, sometimes to political opposition to American foreign policy, etc.). Is it that you feel strongly that even though this issue takes such consistently political form, it still somehow "transcends" politics? Are you worried that identifying the subject as political makes it somehow debatable, when you think it shouldn't be?--G-Dett 01:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a political term. I'm not so sure that it's a "neologism," which (in my opinion) would dismiss it as the equivalent of pop culture slang. But it's a political term. Whatever else it may also be, and I am certainly not doubting its legitimacy, it is still a political term. On another note, I get the sense that critics of the term, such as Klug and Berlet, have received an awful lot of space in the article. What do you think? Dino 01:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

GHCool and Armon, welcome to the discussion. Your posts above (Armon's concern that NAS not be seen as "merely a political term" and GHCool's likening of NAS to scientific theories such as biological evolution and global warming) suggest that you would answer yes to my last two questions – is that right?--G-Dett 01:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem calling NAS a political term, even though I think the term goes far beyond merely the political. However, I would object to calling it a political neologism. --GHcool 06:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
So I think we have a consensus. It's a political term, among other things, but it's not a neologism. Objections? Anyone? Dino 16:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
As used, it is pretty clearly a neologism. How could it be anything else? The word neologism doesn't imply that something is "pop culture slang." It's just, as American Heritage says, "a new word, expression, or usage." john k 16:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
That definition is probably too narrow because that definition could also include pop culture slang like "soccer mom." --GHcool 17:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say at this point that we have consensus on "political term," but we need further discussion on "neologism." Any objections? Dino 18:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

So who are you going to quote as saying "New antisemitism" is a "political term"? Please name the individuals, and quote them, per WP:ATT. Jayjg (talk) 19:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Pasting in from above:

Allan Brownfield describes the term as a "form of political blackmail." Cotler describes the phenomenon as "political antisemitism," which Taguieff in turn calls a "new political-intellectual conformism." Bernard Lewis writes, "This is where the third phase of anti-Semitism arises, which for want of a better term we might call political-cum-ideological Judeophobia." Zipperstein thinks it's better described as "anti-Israelism," which he says is informed by "a much distorted, simplistic, but this-worldly political analysis devoid of anti-Jewish bias." Peter Beaumont of the Guardian says of those who use the term that "what they are talking about is the criticism in the media and political classes of Europe of the policies of Sharon." Conrad Black's wife, for her part, traces the phenomenon to "London's political salon scene"...shall I go on?

If you need page numbers or whatever, let me know.--G-Dett 20:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I need to see someone describing "New antisemitism" as a "political term"; not all your original research. Jayjg (talk) 02:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
How do you include a citation in a category anyway? Also, why would we side with the POV which would categorize it as such? <<-armon->> 22:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
You think Brownfield, Lewis, Zipperstein, Taguieff, et al share a POV? Who of our RS's doesn't think NAS is a political phenomenon?
I take it your first question is directed to Jay.--G-Dett 22:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd say it's a straightforward logical deduction from the references, per WP:ATT. But I'm not sure if we yet have consensus on this point. —Ashley Y 03:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

There's no OR, just unequivocal direct quotes from our main reliable sources.--G-Dett 17:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

None of which refer to NAS as a "political term". Jayjg (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't invent criteria, Jay. It is absurd and capricious to demand that a source exactly reproduce a most casual locution, and one with any number of obvious synonyms. There are whole paragraphs in this article devoted to the EUMC document and (self-published) articles by Chip Berlet – none of which even so much as mention "new antisemitism." That raises no OR issues for you. In fact you once warned darkly that it "isn't OK" to even question your conclusion that when the EUMC document referred to "antisemitism" they really meant the "new antisemitism." Stop disguising ideology as an implementation of WP:NOR; it's an abuse of both the letter and spirit of that important policy.--G-Dett 18:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

From "the right"

An anonymous editor keeps wanting to delete "far right" as one of the sources of new antisemitism. I don't think this is accurate - the article includes David Duke, and NAS has also been put at the feet of Pat Buchanan et al. I don't want to get into a revert war, so let me get a sense of the senate - any objections to include "right" or "far right" in the scope of NAS? --Leifern 21:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm certainly with you on this one. What I find fascinating is the new alliance between the mortal enemies of the far left and far right, that is represented by NAS. Dino 21:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
The first sentence has SEVEN cites supporting it. The anon would need some extraordinary evidence to alter it. <<-armon->> 22:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
My understanding is that the first sentence (appropriately) describes the concept according to its proponents. If they say the right is "new" as opposed to "old" antisemitism, I'm happy with that. However, someone added "the center" as well, as a separate force. I don't think any of the refs support that? —Ashley Y 22:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the lead, in my view, is that it artificially whitewashes what the theory primarily is: a theory alleging a new relationship between antisemitism and bashing Israel. The first sentence has 7 sources, but if you look at them, they don't actually support what the first sentence says. One of the sources says that the New Antisemitism comes from these directions, but none /define/ NAS by that trait. That, indeed, appears to be our unique spin. Meanwhile, nearly every writer, including the aforementioned 7, discusses NAS as primarily relating to anti-Zionism and excessive criticism of Israel.

This was one issue in the mediation at the top of the page, though that mediation unfortunately seems to have stalled. I'm not sure if we'll be hearing back about that, but I think that's one thing regarding the first paragraph that really needs to be improved. Mackan79 23:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Mackan, how would you know what "nearly every writer" on NAS says, given that you appear not to have read many of them? That's not a dig, by the way, but a serious question, which I've asked you before, but I didn't get an answer. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Slim, your question has been answered,[14] and it is not any more civil or topical now than the last umpteen times you've raised it.[15].
In any case, if you disagree with my assessment, I'm still awaiting your response. As I have said, my support consists first of all of the authors cited in this article, and second of 9 others not cited here.[16] Can you please look at what I said there and explain if you disagree? Mackan79 15:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Completely arbitrary & capricious section break #6

OK, if that is true, how about this (changed text in italics):

"New antisemitism is the concept of an international resurgence of attacks on Jewish symbols, as well as the acceptance of antisemitic beliefs and their expression in public discourse, relating to anti-Zionism." (plus refs)

—Ashley Y 00:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope, because that's not what the sources say it is about. It's not all about anti-Zionism, it's about a resurgence of anti-Semitism, unusual alliances between the far left, the far right, and Islamists, and various other things. Jayjg (talk) 01:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
It bears mentioning that this is not the sole definition of "NAS" favoured by opponents or proponents of the term. CJCurrie 01:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Jayjg, can you tell us which sources say this? I've looked through each of them and haven't found that material. What it appears to come from is the piece by Jonathan Sacks, sourced first, in which he says "The new anti-Semitism is coming simultaneously from three different directions...." Entirely missing from his piece, though, is any statement that this is the definition. And in fact, what he later says is precisely that "What we are witnessing today is the second great mutation of anti-Semitism in modern times, from racial anti-Semitism to religious anti-Zionism (with the added premise that all Jews are Zionists)." So can I ask which source states that the directions from where it comes is solely what defines "New Antisemitism" as used by all notable authors? Mackan79 04:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
"Entirely missing from [Sacks's] piece, though, is any statement that this is the definition." So what? Where does our lead use the word "definition"? SlimVirgin (talk) 05:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
It states NAS is "the concept of...". This presents it as a definition. Also, though, see WP:Lead. "The first sentence in the lead section should be a concise definition of the topic unless that definition is implied by the title (such as 'History of …' and similar titles)." This is my problem: couldn't we give a better concept of what NAS is up front? My feeling is you don't really know until the third paragraph, and even then, the whole thing is muddled. Mackan79 15:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Completely arbitrary & capricious section break #7

I don't know how this can be reduced to "theory." There is a resurgence in antisemitic attacks; most if not all of these attacks are tied in with anti-Israeli rhetoric. It's unknowable whether those who perpetrate these attacks are influenced by the anti-Israeli rhetoric to go develop hatred toward Jews; or whether they find a pretext for antisemitism in going against Israel. The controversy over the term is whether the attacks represent a new type of antisemitism, distinct from all the other forms. But there's nothing about it that ties it to a particular political ideology. It's just notable that the kind of virulent anti-Israelism that crosses the line into antisemitism comes from all extreme ideologies. Which really isn't that surprising, but that's my view. --Leifern 03:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

So you would say the sources all connect NAS with anti-Zionism? Would "anti-Israelism" be better? —Ashley Y 03:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

For reference, here are the old version of the lead I could find. [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]

I think it is true that the NAS connects with anti-Zionism. The difference between old and new is stated above. The old anti-semitism is based on prejudice against race, ethnicity and religious identity. The NAS is based on opposition to national identity. I think it is easier to conceptualize Zionism as national identity (nationalism is probably the correct word but may be construed incorrectly). This is why the NAS is basically leftist. Most leftist ideologies oppose national identities. Anti-nationalism spills over to anti-zionism which spills over to anti-semitism as the identities of all three of these get blurred in the case of Israel. Lumping in nationalists as being part of the New Antisemitism eliminates the distinction between the Old anti-Semitism. So in summary, anti-nationalism (and by extension anti-zionism) is the basis. Expanding it to all forms of anti-semitism detracts from it's distinction as "new". The "new" part is distinctly leftist. --Tbeatty 06:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you can say the left is anti-nationalist, because they support Palestinian nationalism. It's specifically Jewish nationalism they oppose, at least in this part of the world. SlimVirgin (talk)
actually I think the left supports "right of return". I don't think it's fair to characterize that as supporting Palestinian nationalism. The problem is that the Palestinian state that the left would want, isn't the one the Palestinians would implement. In general, I think the leftist goal is a secular integrated democracy that includes both palestinians and israelites. The left's position is that Jewish nationalsits oppose a secular, integrated, identity-less state. This is where the anti-semitism comes from. palestinians and nationalist arab states support Palestinian nationalism (as long as the land comes from israel). I would characterize nationalist Arab anti-semitism as of the Old variety. --Tbeatty 07:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Completely arbitrary & capricious section break #8

How would this be for an opening paragraph? I think it manages to encapsulate all of the key components:

The concept of new antisemitism posits that the international resurgence of attacks on Jewish symbols, the allegedly increased acceptance of antisemitic beliefs and their expression in public discourse, and strong criticism of Israel coming from the political left, far-right, and Islamism, together constitute various expressions of a single phenomenon.

--G-Dett 18:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a very good improvement. I was actually in the process of coming up with something myself; as an alternative, I'll incorporate yours with what I had (and minor suggestions) for further comment. The first sentence is taken from Antisemitism.

New antisemitism is the concept of a new form of 21st century antisemitism coming simultaneously from the left, the far right, and radical Islam, which tends to focus on opposition to Zionism and a Jewish homeland in the State of Israel. 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][3]

The concept generally posits that an international resurgence of attacks on Jewish symbols, an increased acceptance of antisemitic beliefs in public discourse, and strong criticism of Israel, together constitute various expressions of a single phenomenon, and an evolution in the appearance of antisemitic beliefs.

Proponents of the concept argue that anti-Zionism, anti-Americanism, anti-globalization, third worldism, and opposition to the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish homeland may be coupled with antisemitism, or constitute disguised antisemitism. [2][3] Critics of the concept argue that it serves to equate legitimate criticism of Israel with antisemitism, and that it is used to silence debate. [6][7]

Thoughts? Mackan79 19:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Looks great. I'm curious to hear what others have to say.--G-Dett 22:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not entirely comfortable with incorporating the Left-far Right-radical Islam trio into the definition. Carter is being called a new antisemite, and so are Mearsheimer and Walt, without belonging to any of the three danger groups. Also, NAS is being used not only in connection with harsh criticism of Israel, but also in relation to suggestions that Jews exert excessive power, either in the US or internationally. The definition should take this into account. --Abenyosef 23:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
You're right, of course, that the discourse of NAS in action is directed at many people (Carter and Mearsheimer, yes, but also Tony Judt, Richard Cohen, Tony Kushner, etc.) who don't fit any of these target political categories. But the opening, and to some extent the article itself, are devoted to describing the theory of NAS in its own terms. --G-Dett 23:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
True. OTOH, I had actually been considering a sentence regarding the subtlety aspect to New Antisemitism, which I think may also be important. I believe my sentences was something like "The term is also used to invoke a less direct form of antisemitism, and more political, in its focus on the State of Israel as the Jewish homeland [or other concepts such as a Jewish lobby]." Would something of that nature be helpful? Mackan79 23:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It's nice to see that all the people who deny the existence of New antisemitism are able to come to such a quick agreement on how to re-define it. In any event, any intro which attempts to claim that New antisemitism revolves around "strong criticism of Israel" can hardly be taken seriously. If any of you want to truly try to suggest improvements to the intro, I think you'd need to first commmit yourselves to WP:NPOV; even better would be committing yourselves to Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy. Jayjg (talk) 00:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. Unfortunately, it's kind of a hard thing to say perfectly, since most phrasings are loaded one way or another. Do you have a better suggestion? This is what I was hoping for. "Excessive" you probably wouldn't like either. "Disproportionate" would be one option, supported by several sources. Would you be happier with that?
I think you're mistaken that we're writing for the enemy though. We're writing a neutral intro. This shouldn't endorse or undermine the concept. I also object to your characterization of my political views, which are incorrect, but also off topic. In any case, would you suggest something better? I'd throw out "disproportionate opposition" as a substitute for "strong criticism." Mackan79 02:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not at all contemplating fighting over "strong." I'm not much concerned what adjective we put there, as these terms will be understood to be relative by anyone reading this. The main thing is to make clear the centrality of criticism of Israel to the purview of this concept.
These suggestions are put here in manifestly good faith and constitute a self-evidently constructive effort. Perhaps other editors could rise to the occasion and reciprocate.--G-Dett 02:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I think unless there are reliable sources that discuss NAS without connecting it to opposition to Israel, we should put it in. —Ashley Y 04:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

'Demonization'

Mackan79, the term you are looking for is demonization, and quite a number of the people discussing New antisemitism have used it. I'm not sure why people would be reluctant to fairly represent the views of those who are proponents of the concept. Jayjg (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

"Demonization" would be the NPOV word of choice? Will we put it in bold like that, for extra NPOV?
I wouldn't oppose using their words, but if we're quoting them we'll use quotation marks. An encyclopedic introduction does not just quietly assimilate the disputed vocabulary of a controversial theory it's presenting. Doing so would not be an adherence to WP:NPOV, but rather a gross violation of it. The intro to "Allegations of Israeli Apartheid" (not a good model to go by, but mine is a narrow point) speaks of "Israel's treatment of Arabs living in the West Bank and Israel." Your suggestion that it should instead say something about "Bantustan conditions in the occupied territories and second-class citizenship in Israel proper" strikes me as peculiar, and wrong-headed.--G-Dett 17:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
The difference being that no-one objects to criticism of Israel, even strong criticism, neither the proponents of New antisemitism nor the opponents. The claim that people object to strong criticism of Israel is, of course, the usual straw man argument. Once you present your opponents' arguments as straw men, you've lost any semblance of NPOV. Jayjg (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Isn't the argument of critics of the idea of "new antisemitism" that, while its proponents of course claim that they do not object to criticism of Israel as such, that the limits of acceptable criticism of Israel are so narrow that it effectively amounts to the same thing? "Demonization" seems to me to be rather understating the claim? Beyond that, the whole argument seems to be begging the question, in that it essentially makes "demonization" mean "any criticism of Israel that we don't think is acceptable." john k 20:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Those who describe the demonization are pretty specific about what it means; it's not just any criticism. Jayjg (talk) 21:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
You may find them sufficiently specific but their RS-critics do not. In any event, to use the word "demonization" in the intro, without quotation marks or attribution, would be a flagrant violation of WP:NPOV.--G-Dett 00:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I also disagree with "demonization," which I think understates the position (as expressed by many). This isn't to create a straw man; I agree that "strong criticism" overstates the general position, but we shouldn't understate it either. If you look at the Antisemitism section on New Antisemitism, first, there seems to have developed concensus for this statement (which also appears on Anti-Zionism with two sources):

Some commentators believe that criticisms of Israel and Zionism are often disproportionate in degree and unique in kind, and attribute this to antisemitism.

Is this not a fair assessment of the position? Brian Klug, then, says it thusly:

But isn't excessive criticism of Israel or Zionism evidence of an anti-semitic bias? In his book, The Case for Israel, Alan Dershowitz argues that when criticism of Israel "crosses the line from fair to foul" it goes "from acceptable to anti-semitic".
People who take this view say the line is crossed when critics single Israel out unfairly; when they apply a double standard and judge Israel by harsher criteria than they use for other states; when they misrepresent the facts so as to put Israel in a bad light; when they vilify the Jewish state; and so on. All of which undoubtedly is foul. But is it necessarily anti-semitic?

No, it's not, he argues. I find the Dershowitz quote, then, here ("When Does Anti-Israel Rhetoric Become Anti-Semitism?", by Richard Juran).

"So long as criticism is comparative, contextual, and fair, it should be encouraged, not disparaged. But when the Jewish nation is the only one criticized for faults that are far worse among other nations, such criticism crosses the line from fair to foul, from acceptable to anti-Semitic."

Larry Summers in the same Juran article: "What is the equivalent of anti-Semitism is the singling out of the Jewish nation for divestment, boycott, U. N. condemnation or other sanctions, in face of, and despite its far better record on human rights than any other nation in the Middle East and most other nations in the world."

Thomas Friedman: "But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction - out of all proportion to any other party in the Middle East - is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest."

So isn't there a more appropriate word, then, than "demonization"? To me, "disproportionate opposition" is pretty good, because it gets at the point that it's not just criticism, but opposition (boycotts, divestment, etc.). Nevertheless, some, such as Dershowitz, seem to go even further. Is there anything else that would work for you? Mackan79 18:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I saw the term "vilification" used in your quotes as well. Jayjg (talk) 20:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, well, I think there are several problems with these.
  1. Would you mind not mucking up the page with linked text? As a means to make a point, this strikes me as inappropriate.
  2. The fact that many consider demonization antisemitic is certainly true. What it doesn't mean is that this is the ultimate standard for all notables who use the term. The problem, as the quotes I provided were intended to show, is that the standard that many use does not stop at "demonization," but includes a number of things which are not called, and could not neutrally be called, "demonization." Do you disagree with this point? If not, it seems we would be talking about adding "demonization," rather than substituting it.
  3. Regarding the word "demonization," please see WP:TE. The problem isn't original research. There simply has to be another way for us to say this than picking about the third most loaded word in the Enlglish language.
Is there any other way you would like to approach this? I have a hard time seeing that you would not understand the problem with the word "demonization" in an encyclopedia. The question, again, is not whether demonization is considered antisemitic, but whether that is truly the furthest extent that the concept goes. I think the various quotes establish that for many it isn't.
That said, I am totally open to expressing that most people in talking about NAS are talking about something extreme that goes beyond the realm of normal criticism. Is there some other way we could convey this? Mackan79 21:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Another arbitrary & capricious section break

"Demonization" is the word proponents use most often. We can't start making up words, or telling them what they ought to be saying. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Not so. The most-common term used is "singling out Israel." We should try and formulate a definition that includes this concept.
Furthermore, there's a big problem with the word demonization. Its proponents use it in a sense not universally accepted, i.e. that anyone who criticizes Israel without simultaneously writing a treatise on all other human rights violations in the world is demonizing Israel. In other words, it's not that NAS-proponents ban criticism of Israel, God forbid; it's just that they allow such criticism under conditions impossible to meet, with the result that all critics end up being demonizers. This is not the generally accepted meaning of the concept of demonization.
The definition can't adopt the language of the proponents, when this language is at odds with general perceptions of the meanings of the words it uses. "Singling out Israel," or, even less loadedly, "criticizing Israel without simultaneously criticizing other countries alleged to violate human rights," is the right concept to describe the NAS proponents version of what new antisemitism amounts to. --Abenyosef 00:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't make straw man arguments for proponents of New antisemitism. They mean demonization, and they give very specific examples. They will be allowed to make their own arguments, regardless of your disagreement with (or strawmanning of) them. Jayjg (talk) 00:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
"Strawman" is a wonderful word with a precise meaning; for heaven's sake stop stop making such a catachrestic hash of it.--G-Dett 01:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

We're talking about the lead, for G-d's sake. It's not "making up words" to use neutral language in the introduction to a controversial topic. We can quote people referring to "demonization," but we're not going to just assimilate and naturalize that vocabulary in a supposedly neutral lead. I can't quite believe I'm having to explain this to editors with years of experience and tens of thousands of edits. We don't speak of "Bantustan conditions in the occupied territories and second-class citizenship in Israel proper" in the lead of "Allegations of Israeli Apartheid" just because that's the language of the theory's advocates; we speak of "Israeli's treatment of Arabs in the West Bank and Israel," and rightly so.

I suggest "arguably disproportionate criticism." The very thing at stake in the debate about NAS is what is disproportionate and what is not, what is justifiably strong criticism and what is demonization. A lead that forecloses that debate instead of presenting it is, by definition, not an NPOV lead; it's that simple.--G-Dett 00:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. "Demonization" and "singling out" are the two major components of new anti-Semitic criticism of Israel. This is readily available from reliable sources. NOR and NPOV rules would not be violated by including these two key concepts. --GHcool 00:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
You don't use loaded phrases in an intro, period. Wikipedia 101, guys. We hastened to demonstrate we weren't wedded to "strong criticism" when Jay objected to it. Something of that graciousness might be reciprocated.--G-Dett 01:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

See, for instance, one of the sources cited by Jayjg, the Canadian Jewish Congress:

Now of course Israel must be held accountable for any actions in violation of international law or norms. But that is the point. Equality before and under the law should be the maxim, not the discriminatory treatment Israel receives. There is a fundamental difference between criticism and demonization.

It's crystal-clear that "demonization" is being used as a synonym of "singling out Israel." According to this concept, Cuba is also being demonized as the only dictatorship blockaded by the US, and Chávez is being demonized as the only dictator compared to Hitler by a US Secretary of Defense.

To paraphrase Brian Klug, when demonization is everywhere, it's nowhere. The word has no place in an article lead, and can be safely replaced with "criticizing Israel without simultaneously criticizing other countries alleged to violate human rights," which is what NAS proponents like the CJC mean by it. --Abenyosef 02:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

We could compare it with the criticism of France when they tested nuclear weapons, byt China also did it at about the same time and they weren't criticised as much. Is this eveidence of anti-French racism? Obviously not. It's simply because France is a westen democracy and China is a dictatorship. Dictatorships and democracies are judged differently. The whole "You cant't criticise me unless you also criticise him" attitude is in itself a version of a strawman. The same goes for criticism of journalistic freedom in say USA. Then somebody say "Hey, it's not as bad as in Russia" and in Russia they say "Hey, it's not as bad as in Belarus" and in Belarus nobody dare say anything abou the lack of journalistic freedom. // Liftarn
In case of anti-Israel sentiment, the term demonization is well sourced and reflects facts. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, it reflects opinions. // Liftarn

"At the 47-nation [Human Rights] Council, inaugurated in June to replace the discredited Commission on Human Rights, there have been only 10 resolutions addressing specific countries: eight harsh condemnations of Israel, and two soft, non-condemnatory resolutions on Sudan." [27] This is far, far beyond any sort of "judging dictatorships on different grounds that democracies". It turns out that 80% of the serious Human Rights violations in the world are occurring in tiny little Israel, 20% of the less serious kind in Sudan, and none anywhere else. Who'd a thunk? Jayjg (talk) 17:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

What is the relevance of this? This would seem clearly to be an instance of disproportionate criticism of Israel as compared to criticism of other human rights violators. But what does it have to do with anti-semitism, or the new anti-semitism? What does it have to do with "demonization"? john k 22:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
It was a response to Liftarn's feeble comparisons regarding France, China, etc., pointing out that the analogy was false and plainly silly. Jayjg (talk) 16:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Just some soapboxing I think. I wonder how the UK would be seen if they had used the same methods against the Irish as Israel is using against the Palestinians. // Liftarn

Progress on the Lead

Does everyone agree the basic template of Mackan79's lead is acceptable?

If editors feel very strongly that "demonization" is an appropriate word and should be included, then we'd need to take care to avoid the NPOV problems that come with it. In particular, we'd need to phrase things to make very clear what is settled fact for all parties to the NAS debate (a worldwide resurgence of attacks on Jewish symbols) and what is seriously disputed (the line between legitimate criticism of Israel and "demonization," for example). So rephrasing Mackan's lead accordingly (with other minor modifications for the sake of concision, none of which I'm wedded to:

New antisemitism is the concept of a new form of 21st-century antisemitism emanating simultaneously from the left, the far right, and radical Islam, and tending to manifest itself as opposition to Zionism. 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][3]

The concept generally posits that the international resurgence of attacks on Jewish symbols since 2000 has been coupled with increased acceptance of antisemitism in public discourse, as well as political criticism of Israel so strong as to constitute demonization; and that together these constitute various expressions of a single phenomenon, and an evolution in the appearance but not the underlying content of antisemitic beliefs.

Proponents of the concept argue that anti-Zionism, anti-Americanism, anti-globalization, third worldism, and opposition to the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish homeland may be linked to antisemitism, or constitute disguised antisemitism. [2][3] Critics of the concept argue that it serves to equate legitimate criticism of Israel with antisemitism, and that it is used to silence debate.

The other problem I see now is that mention of criticism is exceedingly brief. I don't think we should add any sentences, but the opening sentence should indicate that this is a controversial concept.--G-Dett 14:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks pretty good. A few issues:
  1. I would mention Israel in the first sentence, not just Zionism. Most of the sources (including Jay's particularly) seem to talk about disproportionately attacking Israel for alleged abuses, etc., so I don't think it's just Zionism. The previous wording seemed redundant, but perhaps we can add that in a better way. "Zionism and the State of Israel" may be the simplest option.
  2. I'd still say "thean international resurgence" in par 2, simply because it's the first time we're introducing this fact.
  3. "...but not the underlying content" is actually perhaps not necessarily true. Proponents as well as critics acknowledge, I think, that there's some ambiguity about whether NAS is always intentionally antisemitic, or also includes functional antisemitism which may not be intentional.
  4. Re demonization (and your caveat at the bottom), I think this is a fairer idea, but still lacks some important precision with the use of the word "demonization." The "Three D's" argument presented by Sharansky and others indeed says demonization is one type of NAS, and that's an idea we need to incorporate, but it's clearly not the only concept. Double standards, specifically, is presented separately. [28]
All that said, I think it's a good attempt at compromise, but I still have to wonder if the "disporortionate" idea wouldn't be a better and fairer representation for everybody. If I may present this in context (with minor alteration):

The concept generally posits that an international resurgence of attacks on Jewish symbols, an increased acceptance of antisemitic beliefs in public discourse, and disproportionate condemnation of Israel by various individuals and world bodies, together constitute a single phenomenon, and an evolution in the appearance of antisemitic beliefs.

Is there anything to this? For one thing, I think the "demonization" concept is actually somewhat covered in the first two examples, about Jewish symbols and public discourse. Disproportionate condemnation, then, strikes me as another fair way of describing the "double standards" idea. Other thoughts? Mackan79 15:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I still have a problem with this template, because it doesn't make it sufficiently clear that in the NAS proponents' lexicon the word demonization has other meanings in addition to the generally accepted ones. Consider the following two paragraphs:
(a) Israeli soldiers take pleasure in shooting little children between the eyes, because of their sheer contempt of all lives other than Jewish lives.
(b) Israel uses the flechette, a shell loaded with thousands of small darts which disperse in a conical arch three hundred meters long and about ninety meters wide. The use of this indiscriminate weapon has resulted in the killing of innocent civilians; for instance, on 30 December 2001, three minors were killed by flechettes that where fired near Beit Lahiya: Muhammad Ahmad Lubad, age 17; Muhammad 'Abd a-Rahman al-Madhun, age 15; and Ahmad Muhammad Banat, age 15. Also, Israel uses Palestinian civilians, including children, as human shields. For instance, on April 22, 2004, Muhammed Badwan, 13, was tied by Israeli soldiers to the front of their jeep as a human shield against Palestinian rock throwers.
While everyone agrees that paragraph (a) amounts to demonization, NAS proponents --and only NAS proponents-- claim that paragraph (b) also constitutes demonization, because it fails to mention that genocide is under way in Darfour.
It is, thus, necessary to point out that NAS proponents give two meanings to the word demonization, namely (i) "the characterization of individuals, groups, or political bodies as evil or subhuman" (the generally accepted meaning), and (ii) "the act of criticizing Israel without making comparable criticism of other countries and factions."
Only if this is perfectly clarified can there be room for the word demonization in the intro.--Abenyosef 15:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I think Mackan's made a compelling case for "disproportionate condemnation" instead of "demonization." And Abenyosef makes an important point about idiosyncratic applications of the latter word. We can quote those who use it in the body of the article, but we can't use it ourselves in the lead.
Mackan, all of your numbered points above are well taken. My only quibble is with #2. The phrasing I suggested, including the use of the definite article instead of the indefinite, was supposed to draw a firm line between the consensus fact (the increase in antisemitic acts since 2000) and all the subsequent theoretical or impressional speculations (regarding greater public tolerance for antisemitism, excessive or disproportionate political criticism of Israel, and so on). If the syntactic skeleton of the sentence makes this distinction clear, then I'm a lot less concerned about what words we use to describe the sort of criticism of Israel in question. That said, I think it's clear that "demonization" is inappropriate for the lead. It's an intensely partisan, breathlessly emotive word with no agreed-upon analytical meaning.--G-Dett 17:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The 'Three Ds'

Sharansky talks of 3 Ds, demonization, double-standards, and deligitimization. They are 3 separate concepts:

The first "D" is the test of demonization. When the Jewish state is being demonized; when Israel's actions are blown out of all sensible proportion; when comparisons are made between Israelis and Nazis and between Palestinian refugee camps and Auschwitz - this is anti- Semitism, not legitimate criticism of Israel.

The second "D" is the test of double standards. When criticism of Israel is applied selectively; when Israel is singled out by the United Nations for human rights abuses while the behavior of known and major abusers, such as China, Iran, Cuba, and Syria, is ignored; when Israel's Magen David Adom, alone among the world's ambulance services, is denied admission to the International Red Cross - this is anti-Semitism.

The third "D" is the test of delegitimization: when Israel's fundamental right to exist is denied - alone among all peoples in the world - this too is anti-Semitism.

Consistently comparing Israelis to Nazis etc. is not "political criticism of Israel"; in fact, proponents of the concept of New antisemitism point out that it is well beyond the realm of "political criticism". Plastering campuses for weeks the campus with posters showing soup cans with pictures of dead babies on them and labels reading, "canned Palestinian children meat, slaughtered according to Jewish rites under American license"[29] is not "political criticism of Israel", it's a blood libel. Again, opponents of the concept of New antisemitism may come to all sorts of agreements on this talk page about what the proponents are saying, but WP:NPOV does not allow their straw man presentations to be used in the article. Jayjg (talk) 17:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

But Tony Judt, Stephen Walt, Tony Kushner, Richard Cohen, Jimmy Carter et al haven't engaged in any of these things and yet they've been singled out by the proponents of NAS for their political criticisms of Israel, right Jay? If you want to create two categories – "strong political criticism of Israel" and "demonization of Israel and Israelis" – that would be fine with me. But let's not pretend that political criticism of Israel (the kind free of references to eating dead babies and so on) isn't central to the discourse of NAS.
Also, what you keep confusing with a "strawman" argument is actually one side of a – perhaps the – debate at the heart of the NAS discussion. Those on one side of the NAS debate insist they don't object to "strong criticism" of Israel, only "disproportionate criticism" or "singling Israel out" or "demonizing Israel," etc. Those on the other side insist they're not "demonizing" Israel, they're offering legitimate "strong criticism," and that strong criticism (as opposed to toothless blandishments) is exactly what the advocates of NAS are opposed to. It's a debate about what constitutes "strong" criticism and what constitutes "disproportionate" criticism, and where the line between them falls. The sides disagree – that's why they're "sides" in the first place, that's why they're debating, and that's why NAS is a controversial subject. There's no "strawman" here, just disagreement about where "strong criticism" shades into something nasty and unfair. --G-Dett 17:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Sharansky's is not the only POV on this. For the first "D", Klug claims that there is a difference between extreme and unwarranted criticism of Israel, and anti-semitism. There is extreme and unwarranted criticism of other countries too, it doesn't necessarily refer to their people.
For the second "D", as Mearsheimer and Walt point out, there is good reason in the U.S. to especially focus on the actions of Israel, given the amount of support America gives to Israel. The MDA wasn't allowed in to the Red Cross because they insisted on using a religious emblem, and the RC really didn't want to add a second religious emblem (after the crescent, the red cross itself is not supposed to be religious). This RC instead went to all the trouble of coming up with a new neutral emblem, under which the MDA has now been admitted.
For the third "D", the criticism in question more or less refers to the same kind of criticism of the constitution that was aimed at the old South Africa. Sure, if you're demanding that the Jews are expelled from the land, that's anti-Semitism. But if you're demanding that everyone live together, even though Jews might end up as a minority, that's not anti-Semitism, portentous phrases about "the destruction of Israel" notwithstanding. —Ashley Y 18:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

These are all good points. "The three D's" is an argument relevant to the larger debate about NAS; it does not constitute, however, an editorial guideline for Wikipedians writing an article about NAS. If we take it as such, we violate WP:NPOV.--G-Dett 18:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Although I disagree with Ashley Y's assessment of the first two D's, at least her arguments are logically sound. Her third argument does not correctly interpret the word delegitimization. She assumes it refers to delegitimization of the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza (a debatable issue in domestic and international Israeli politics), but the delegitimization Shaansky refers to is the delegitimzation of the very concept of a Jewish state in the Jews' ancient homeland. This is what sets it apart as anti-Semitic and not simply a political difference of opinion on disputed territory because only a racist would deny a people their rights to self-determination within their ancient homeland especially if they've fought and won several wars to earn and preserve that right. --GHcool 19:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Interesting digression, especially on how the right of self-determination is predicated on winning wars, a logic only racists resist. Now, back to the lead. Suggestions?--G-Dett 19:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
G-Dett, you deliberately twisted my words. The onus is on you to explain why. --GHcool 19:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
The onus is on you to explain how.--G-Dett 20:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

'Sources are vry clearly divided'

Ashley, I don't see any of those names brought in this article as examples of New antisemitism; are you sure you're not creating another straw man argument? Also, I won't go through all the names, but I could point out that Judt has deligitimized Israel's right to exist, proposing it be dissolved into some other entity. Carter has both demonized and deligitimized Israel, by using the "apartheid" epithet to describe it. Jayjg (talk) 19:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It is you who's making the strawman argument, Jay. Are you willing to "commit to NPOV" (your phrase) or not? It really is that simple. Our reliable sources are very clearly divided on what constitutes "demonization," "delegitimization," "valid criticism," etc. For Wikipedia to pick a winner in that debate, as per your suggestion, would be an obvious violation of WP:NPOV. (p.s. I don't believe you have read and understood the Judt piece you refer to, but that's neither here nor there.)--G-Dett 19:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
No, a set of Wikipedia editors who insist that there is no New antisemitism also claim that "our reliable sources are very clearly divided" on the subject. That's an entirely different thing. NPOV means fairly presenting the views of proponents, not watering down or undermining their claims even as you present them. Jayjg (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Review WP:NPOV, Jay. We present debates, we don't adjudicate them.--G-Dett 19:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm still puzzled by your last post. You don't think our RS's are divided about the line between legitimate criticism and demonization? How much of the material for this article have you actually read, Jay?--G-Dett 19:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
The proponents aren't divided, only the opponents. Please stick to discussing article content, not other editors. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 20:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Jayjg, according to one of your own sources,
The new antisemitism used by NGOs is reflected in frequent accusations of “war crimes”, violations of international law, "indiscriminate killings", apartheid, racism, etc. in which the context of terror is erased, and Israeli is singled out for obsessive condemnation. The powerful global NGOs, including HRW and Amnesty International, continue to actively promote the Durban strategy of demonization and singling out of Israel.
Therefore, HRW and Amnesty are Israel demonizers. Now I'd like you to point out any instance of HRW or AI making comparisons "between Israelis and Nazis and between Palestinian refugee camps and Auschwitz", which is the one and only ingredient in Sharansky's definition of demonization which would be shared by people other than NAS proponents. Also, please quote HRW and AI as claiming that Israel is at the root of all evil, which is another example of demonization provided by another of your sources.
My point is, NAS proponents take advantage of the fact that certain people out there are engaged in Israel demonizing to lump other persons or institutions into the demonizer troupe.
There is a big difference between calling Israel an apartheid state (which ex-Israeli ministers, more knowledgeable than us, have done) and calling it a Nazi state. NAS proponents disingenuously call both demonizing, when only the latter is. A Wikipedia intro should not accept such a free mixing of concepts.
The word milk means milk. If certain gropus use it meaning meat, Wikipedia may report so, but noting the the usage is unique to those groups.--Abenyosef 20:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

"Obsessive condemnation" is getting closer. By the way, none of the sources is "my own", and even if you think a group has misused the word "milk" to mean "meat", you really can't "report so, but noting the the usage is unique to those groups" unless some reliable source has already made that argument. You keep forgetting that your arguments don't belong in Wikipedia articles, only those of reliable sources. Jayjg (talk) 20:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you understood me perfectly. Wikipedia can't use the word milk meaning meat without making it clear that it is reporting a usage, not upholding it. --Abenyosef 21:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
There is no consensus among the sources that what Judt is suggesting is anti-Semitism. For some perhaps that's "the destruction of Israel". For others, there's an obvious parallel with what happened with South Africa, which was hardly "anti-Boerism" or whatever.
I'm sorry, but there's no way we can consider "reconstitution of Israel as a binational state = destruction of Israel = anti-Semitism" as an neutral POV. And sure, Israel was the Jews ancient homeland, even though many Jews have no ancestral connection for almost 2000 years. But Angeln and Saxony are the ancient homeland of the Anglo-Saxon English, and in a slightly shorter timeframe, and there's no right of "return" there. OK, so this too is a POV. But it's not an anti-Semitic one, and we can't use any of these POVs as guiding the article. —Ashley Y 20:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, that's nonsense. The whole idea of Israel was a state for Jews. Turning that into an Arab state with a Jewish minority? You could as easily say that Palestinian nationalist ambitions could be satisfied by joining the West Bank with Jordan and the Gaza Strip with Egypt. Jayjg (talk) 20:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Judt and the concept of binationalism isn't even mentioned in this article, so why is it brought up so often in the talk page? Its only tangentally relevent. --GHcool 20:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

If someone suggested the possibility that Gaza could join Egypt and the WB Jordan, and suggested that this would somehow be desirable, or at least the best choice among bad alternatives, and admitted moreover that such a notion was at this point purely utopian, and stressed that it should never be implemented against the will of anyone involved... then I wouldn't call the suggester an "Islamophobe" or an anti-Palestinian bigot, and I wouldn't describe his argument as a "delegitimization" of Palestinian rights, and I would question the judgment and/or honesty of anyone who did so.--G-Dett 20:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, that is your POV. It's a common POV in some quarters, it may very well have some currency among some of the sources. But it's not a neutral POV. —Ashley Y 20:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Trying to get back on topic. Jay, do you have any suggestions for the lead? Anything to add or alter in Mackan's template?--G-Dett 21:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I think most of the above discussion is unnecessary. I think everyone is agreed that a proper lead in an article on a controversial theory should present its advocates' views. I don't think anyone wants to withhold that. All we're talking about is ensuring that the phraseology doesn't present highly debatable points of view as if they were background fact. Is that OK with you, Jay?
On a closely related matter, Jay, will you help me rewrite the lead to the "Allegations of Israeli Apartheid" article so that it reflects the views of the theory's advocates? I'd be much obliged. I'm having difficulty selling that principle over there, but perhaps you'd have more influence with the editors opposed to me. You've articulated the principle involved, and this is really a chance for us to work together. Thanks.--G-Dett 21:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for Lead

Can I also ask, then, whether there is agreement regarding the parts other than the specific choice of criticism/demonization/condemnation? If we can agree about the rest, I'd like to implement it, which might also help focus the debate. I've pasted my generally preferred version below, which is to say the version I think best accomodates the various viewpoints according to WP:NPOV.

New antisemitism is the concept of a new 21st-century form of antisemitism emanating simultaneously from the left, the far right, and radical Islam, and tending to manifest itself as opposition to Zionism and the State of Israel. 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][3]
The concept generally posits that an international resurgence of attacks on Jewish symbols, an increased acceptance of antisemitic beliefs in public discourse, and vilification of Israel by various individuals and world bodies, together constitute a single phenomenon, and an evolution in the appearance of antisemitic beliefs.
Proponents of the concept argue that anti-Zionism, anti-Americanism, anti-globalization, third worldism, and demonization of Israel or double standards applied to its policies may be linked to antisemitism, or constitute disguised antisemitism. [2][3] Critics of the concept argue that it trivializes the meaning of antisemitism, defines legitimate criticism of Israel too narrowly and demonization too broadly, and exploits antisemitism in order to silence debate.

Regarding the word choice for Par 2, I note G-Dett's point, but simply couldn't get it to sound right with the disproportionate condemantion language and without the statement about "not in form." In that regard, maybe if anybody has small changes, they can feel free to make them in the above, with comment below? Hopefully then we can move forward. Mackan79 23:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the evident problem is that anti-Zionism, anti-Americanism, anti-globalization, and third worldism are objective categories, while "obsessive criticism" has a load of subjectivity that we should strive to avoid. I've replaced it with "criticism of the state of Israel not accompanied by comparable criticism of other countries alleged to violate human rights." It's long, it's clumsy, but it's neutral and it appropriately describes what NAS proponents object to at the end of the day. Maybe a native speaker of English can improve the wording?--Abenyosef 00:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed the wording to represent what proponents actually say. Jayjg (talk) 01:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

No way. Wikipedia does not endorse their improper usage of the word demonization -- and no, it's not OR not to use a word. Back to square one.--Abenyosef 07:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I've reworded my proposal as "criticism of the state of Israel not accompanied by comparable criticism of other countries with arguably worse human rights records."--Abenyosef 07:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the obvious straw man argument again, and replaced it with what they actually say, since we have to actually represent their views, not things they aren't saying. Jayjg (talk) 16:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Jay, I don't really understand. Are you denying that the "double standards" argument exists? You keep referring to straw men, but it seems this is simply a matter of sourcing. We have sources saying that demonization and double standards are not the same thing. We have sources saying that double standards against Israel are New Antisemitism. Why are you calling this a straw man? Mackan79 16:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
How about "what they consider demonization"? Do the sources bear that? —Ashley Y 09:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Let's put it in, then. I think it's an improvement over the original, at least. —Ashley Y 02:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it looks like we're getting there. Regarding the first "vilification", though, I still hope we can find something better, which I really think we can if we all want to preserve the NPOV tone of the article. The continuing problem, then: 1.) Vilification is a loaded word, and 2.) Vilification simply doesn't speak to the issue of double-standards, which (as I think GHcool correctly notes) is (for at least some) a different (and equally important) issue.[30] My main problem with the current version, thus: if we keep that wording in the second paragraph, then I think there simply has to be another sentence about what is actually controversial, since "vilification" really isn't. This sentence would be something like "More controversially, the term is used in regard to criticism or condemnation of Israel which applies different standards to Israel's conduct than to other nations." I guess this raises the question: Would people agree to adding this sentence, or something similar? The sentence would be well sourced, both on people making the argument and on the controversy surrounding it.

Personally, I wouldn't have any problem with adding that sentence, because I think that's the huge controversy here, and I don't see why we shouldn't recognize it. If so, I would have no problem with "vilification" preceding it. If we don't, though, then I think we need to find something better than "vilification," which manages to encompass all three D's, not just the least controversial one. Jay, or others, can I ask whether you'd be more agreeable to either of these approaches? Mackan79 14:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Another approach would be to make the last sentence – noting the controversy sparked by the concept – more specific. "Critics of the concept argue that it defines legitimate criticism of Israel too narrowly and demonization too broadly, and that it exploits antisemitism to silence serious debate," or some such thing.
I also think "opposition to Zionism and the state of Israel" is a little redundant as well as vague. Opposition "to the state of Israel" can mean being opposed to Israel's existence or opposed to its policies. If the former, it's redundant because opposition to Zionism covers that. If the latter, the phrasing is unfortunate. I'd suggest "opposition to Zionism and the policies of the state of Israel," which covers both kinds of opposition more clearly.
Nice work on all this.--G-Dett 14:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, except for the fact that 4 editors who oppose the concept of New antisemitism, and cannot seem to "write for the enemy", can't really expect their misrepresentations of the view of the proponents of New antisemitism to actually go into the article; that would be silly. Jayjg (talk) 16:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Can you rephrase that in terms of a constructive suggestion?
I think the "4 editors" you keep presuming to speak for have bent over backwards to accomodate your suggestions so far, and will continue to do so. They've also put together, with your input, a vastly improved lead. Can you say explicitly what needs to be changed with it and why? Thanks.--G-Dett 16:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. As I said above, I think the issue we're trying to resolve here is why you think this is a misrepresentation. We have here several sources now discussing double standards and demonization as different things, along with discussing disproportionate criticism and/or condemnation of Israel as antisemitic and the New Antisemitism. At this point, G-Dett and I have also come up with two separate ways to incorporate the "vilification" idea, as long as we note the "double standards" point as well. I would think we really should be able to discuss how best to proceed. Mackan79 17:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Just as a thought I don't currently have time to develop: one other issue with what we have is whether the second and third paragraphs shouldn't go together. I've considered ways to do it, but perhaps others have a way. I also feel, generally, like it's strange we don't mention the fact that NAS is controversial (even though much of the article relates to the controversy). That said, we could combine them something like: "Proponents generally argue (surge, public discourse, vilification). Some proponents further argue (anti-Americanism, third worldism, etc.). Controversy exists over (fill in blank)." Perhaps then the final paragraph would briefly note the opposition, or perhaps it could all be put together. Otherwise, I'm simply not sure what makes the second paragraph the theory as opposed to the third paragraph what proponents say. It looks like basically 6 or 7 of the same types of things. Is this worth trying to fix? I just feel like we should get something good now while everybody is looking at it. I may come up with a proposal later. Mackan79 19:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we can mention "double standards" without any original research around the words. Jayjg (talk) 22:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed change

I believe the "Critics of the concept" sentence should be changed to read as follows:

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

This proposed change (re: trivialization) is consistent with objections raised by Brownfield, Klug, Lerner, Butler and others. The argument is an integral component of the "new antisemitism" debate, and I trust that it will not be identified as "original research". Discussion is welcome. CJCurrie 22:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to say it defines "demonization too broadly", you'd obviously have to use "demonization" in the first place. Jayjg (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
As it happens, I merely copied the word "demonization" from Mackan's suggested version (above). I don't have any strong opinions concerning its usage, and would have no objection to replacing it with "illegitimate criticism" or something similar.
Since you raised no objections to "trivializes the meaning of antisemitism", should I assume that you have none? CJCurrie 22:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I think all changes could be made at once, not a bit here and there, so that the paragraphs are in harmony with one another. Jayjg (talk) 22:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
My suggested change is meant to be considered as an amendment to Mackan's revised introduction, not as a stand-alone proposal. In any event, I don't believe that my proposed addition would destabilize any other part of the intro. If you disagree, please tell me why. CJCurrie 22:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Pardon my absence; I've just implemented CJCurrie's suggestion, as well as a brief mention of the "double standards" idea per Jay's suggestion above in my proposed version. Does the current suggestion work for everybody? Mackan79 21:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's ready to go in.--G-Dett 23:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I changed the first paragraph, and am actually wondering now if this doesn't solve the issue without getting into some of the messier issues about demonization or double standards. Indeed, one concern was our continuing attempt to make so many categorical statements about the concept, some of which may not be true in all circumstances. Any thoughts on the paragraph as is? If this has concensus, I think I'd be fine. Mackan79 13:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me.--G-Dett 15:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Being unsure why Slim removed it, I'll try again. If there's an issue, please do explain; we've tried very hard to incorporate all sides here. Mackan79 03:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviewing this, I entered the word "policies" in the third paragraph where "conduct" was written before, which I think is more neutral. Mackan79 16:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Too Long

I feel this article is too long and too repetitive. Several different people are quoted or paraphrased at length, making the same points over and over.

Hypnopomp 22:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b Flannery, Edward H. The Anguish of the Jews: Twenty-Three Centuries of Antisemitism, Paulist Press, first published 1985; this edition 2004, p. 274.
  2. ^ Prager, Dennis & Telushkin, Joseph. Why the Jews? The Reason for Antisemitism. Simon and Shuster, 1983, p. 172, cited in Flannery, Edward H. The Anguish of the Jews: Twenty-Three Centuries of Antisemitism, Paulist Press, 2004, p. 274.
  3. ^ Rubinstein, William D. The Left, the Right and the Jews. Universe Books 1978, p. 77, cited in Flannery, Edward H. The Anguish of the Jews: Twenty-Three Centuries of Antisemitism, Paulist Press 2004, p. 274.
  4. ^ Flannery, Edward H. The Anguish of the Jews: Twenty-Three Centuries of Antisemitism, Paulist Press, first published 1985; this edition 2004, p. 275.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_antisemitism/Archive_11&oldid=1171579486"