Talk:New antisemitism/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Ali consensus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nevertheless, if you are interested in returning the Tariq Ali paragraph to the article, I offered this compromise to Slrubenstein in discussion on my user talk page [1]. To understand my thinking and intention it would be better to read the entire section. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Language

Emanate not escalated....

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

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

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

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

There seems to be documentation that antisemitic attacks in Europe have increased, for instance: [2] [3] [4]. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

G-Dett, you wrote, above, that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the image, again

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

I said three days ago I intended to restore the image, and there was no objection. [5]. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Surprise

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh my

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

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

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

Back to the actual Zombietime issue

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

[Wh]y don't I run down just exactly how the poster compares to the concept. From the lead:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ID and I discussed your point about NPOV in the exchange he alludes to above, the one with butterflies and slugs and Armon. Duke's position was that the image was merely "illustrating a controversial theory," that it would make no difference for example if he'd simply designed it himself. That the important thing about the image was not the circumstances of when and where it appeared but rather simply what it graphically illustrates in terms of the rhetorical tropes of NAS. My response was that the photo (as currently captioned) is used not only to graphically illustrate a theory but to provide evidence of it, and therein lies the NPOV problem as well as the RS problem: "The reader is informed that this placard was "photographed at an anti-war rally in San Francisco on February 16, 2003" – a meaningful (and not reliable sourced) assertion given that the theory being discussed posits that the "virus" of antisemitism has infected today's antiwar left. That's the evidentiary issue."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me solve this for you

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reliable sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sure I saw it. Its just a claim. And you do not show anything that would establish him a reliable source for this article. He appears to know nothing about antisemitism. And, for that matter, I have seen nothing from him about New Antisemitism aside from one short paragraph in one short article which was published in CounterPunch, and which does not cite a single source [6]. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This [7] contains just unsupported claims that Tariq Ali is a reliable source for this article, and contains no documentation. There is nothing to show his knowledge of antisemitism. And even putting that aside, there is nothing to show the has even has knowledge of New Antisemitism. As far is I can see all he has published on the subject of New Antisemitism is one short paragraph which is in one short article that was published by CounterPunch, and which does not cite a single source [8]. Why do you think writing one single paragraph on that subject qualifies him as a reliable source?

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

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

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

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

I have answered many times.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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