Talk:New antisemitism/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Defining the the subject of this article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:CIV? Show me what I have said that was incivil, and I will apologize to you (regardless of how many times you have been incivil to me -- apparently without regrets. [1], just to supply one diff). Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

I am not sure why you think that what the New Left position on this issue amounts to "attribution of destructive and malicious intentions". Is it now you view that what Tariq Ali wrote in this article [2] is not only incorrect, but also "destructive and malicious"? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have replied to Peter Cohen's message.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You see Western antisemitism is not new. This concept of “New Antisemitism” is, I think, quite false. It is the old pre-Hitler antisemitism that utilises occasions to come to the fore when something triggers [it]. Now it is the Israeli situation. If tomorrow there was suddenly a change in the situation in the Middle East and serious negotiations started between Israel and the Palestinians ending with even a temporary compromise for a number of years, that would mean, I am quite sure there would be a decline in antisemitism in the West because the trigger is gone. But the antisemitism would not disappear, it would still be there and there would then be another trigger. It’s a very slow process to deal with, latent antisemitism.[3]

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

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

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

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

But, even leaving that objection aside, Tariq Ali has, as far as I know, written only one short essay that mentions New Antisemitism, which essay was published in CounterPunch, and only one short paragraph in that short unreferenced essay mentions New Antisemitism [4]. How does one paragraph in CounterPunch qualify Tariq Ali as a reliable source for this article? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yehuda Bauer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You see Western antisemitism is not new. This concept of “New Antisemitism” is, I think, quite false. It is the old pre-Hitler antisemitism that utilises occasions to come to the fore when something triggers [it]. Now it is the Israeli situation. If tomorrow there was suddenly a change in the situation in the Middle East and serious negotiations started between Israel and the Palestinians ending with even a temporary compromise for a number of years, that would mean, I am quite sure there would be a decline in antisemitism in the West because the trigger is gone. But the antisemitism would not disappear, it would still be there and there would then be another trigger. It’s a very slow process to deal with, latent antisemitism.[5]

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

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

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

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

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

Please read the rest of the quotation, for context.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am trying to get this straight.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe if we changed the title.

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

You could call it Anti-Zionism and Antisemitism.

BTW check out [[6]] for an example of new antisemitism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think the article is basically too long and spends too much space on he says-she says. the new antismeitism is basically a side show of antisemitism not a replacement. Just because this [7] doesn't mention antisemitism doesn't mean it isn't an example of it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I always said that I understand you viewpoint, but do not agree. On the other hand, I am not sure if you misunderstand what I have said, or if it is really your intention to sound like a Bozo [8]. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Boodlesthecat, I may not quite understand what you are looking for, but perhaps the well respected Matthias Küntzel would be such a source: [9] [10][11]. The qualifying word "collaborative", that you use, rather surprises me. It is quite enough that there as been a convergence (without an organized conspiracy) to satisfy the premise of New Antisemitism. Nevertheless, while living in Italy, I often came across the claim that after WW2 many fascists became communists. But (for the purpose of the article) that is just my OR. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SPLC report

Some interesting stuff in a recent SPLC report. although none actually describes NAS by name, and is probably not usable. I like the Youtube video of the Imam Abdul Alim Musa fella who appears top be speaking to a crowd of....no one? the camera person? What caught my eye (after being alerted to this report via a notice in MuzzleWatch) was the section "On an Oregon university campus, a left-wing discussion group takes a giant leap to the extreme right" (you have to scroll in the SPLC report to it). If Muzzlewatch was highlighting this report with a teaser of "we at Muzzlewatch consider real anti-Semites are using the muzzling argument to defend their right to be loved by the left" I thought there might be some real beef per discussion here about left/right "converegence" NAS. Though SPLC reports, regarding the left group embracing anti-semitism in question that "fewer than 10 people (besides reporters and monitors) usually attend the group's weekly meetings." Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 16:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

OR problem with Wistrich quote?

“ Historian Robert Wistrich addressed the issue in a 1984 lecture delivered in the home of Israeli President Chaim Herzog, in which he argued that a "new anti-Semitic anti-Zionism" was emerging, distinguishing features of which were the equation of Zionism with Nazism and the belief that Zionists had actively collaborated with Nazis during World War II. He argued that such claims were prevalent in the Soviet Union, but added that similar rhetoric had been taken up by a part of the radical Left, particularly Trotskyist groups in Western Europe and America.[13] ”

I think the above section should be removed from the article. He doesn't talk about a phenomenon called "new antisemitism"; he is talking about "new anti-Zionism," which, though perhaps related, is something different. If he doesn't make the connection or state in his lecture that this new antizionism is also a new kind of antisemitism, I'm not sure Wikipedia can make that connection. csloat (talk) 18:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

How do you think the topics are different? How would you relate that to the comments Wistrich makes here? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Wistrich doesn't mention "new antisemitism" in that interview either. As far as how they are different, "anti-Zionism" involves opposition to Zionism (an international political movement), whereas "anti-semitism" involves opposition to (and usually discrimination against) Jews (members of the Jewish people). At least, that is my understanding of the two terms. csloat (talk) 00:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

But he doesn't refer simply to "anti-Zionism", he refers specifically to "new anti-Semitic anti-Zionism", which he sees as different from earlier anti-Zionism. And, of course, "New antisemitism" is the concept of anti-Zionism as a manifestation of, or a mask for, antisemitism. I'm not seeing a difference between the phenomenon he is describing and the phenomenon described in this article. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

What's "new" in his comment is the anti-Zionism, not the anti-semitism. He's not talking about a new antisemitism. I suspect he would argue similarly to Bauer that you are just looking at plain old anti-semitism. But my suspicions as well as yours are original research until we have reliable sources confirming them. csloat (talk) 00:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

What original research? I do not see any problem. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 01:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

How is the "anti-Zionism" part new? I quote from the lede of this article: "Proponents of the concept argue that anti-Zionism, anti-Americanism, anti-globalization, third worldism, and demonization of Israel or double standards applied to its conduct may be linked to antisemitism, or constitute disguised antisemitism." (emphasis mine). Jayjg ^(talk) 01:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You're WP:SYNTHesizing Wistrich's phrase "new anti-Semitic anti-Zionism" with the definition in the lede. —Ashley Y 02:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's that difficult to tease out what Wistrich is getting at. But just in case it is, here he is in a Guardian article on the very subject of NAS.

But Robert Wistrich, director of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem's international centre for the study of anti-semitism, says human rights is merely a cover. "On the left we see a trend to believing there is a worldwide conspiracy in which Jews and Zionists are implicated," he said. "You have a link of money, Jews, America, world domination, globalisation. The notion that the Jews are a superpower that controls America is both a classic and revamped form of anti-semitism. The most interesting phenomenon is the singling out and demonisation of the state of Israel, that brands it as a Nazi-like state or accuses it of genocide. This kind of discourse is often put forward under the banner of human rights. This is new." [12]

IronDuke 02:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This is better. —Ashley Y 02:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree; much better in terms of OR but also more clear and explanatory. csloat (talk) 03:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

trolling from anon ip + established user

An anon ip (which may be the same as Malcolm Schosha (talk · contribs)) is revert warring over the Tariq Ali paragraph. Again. The discussion which took place months ago -- it's right here above -- clearly settled the matter; continued efforts to remove this material without discussion are either trolling and/or vandalism. csloat (talk) 20:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Please review WP:no personal attacks and WP:civility.

In my view, since Tariq Ali is not a reliable source on the subject of any aspect of antisemitism, and therefore he does not belong in the article. That issue was not resolved. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Skimming through the section noted by csloat above, it seems that you held one opinion, and a good dozen+ held another opinion. Seems resolved to me. Tarc (talk) 23:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Tark, please refer to WP:reliable sources, which says

Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.

Notice it says "trustworthy or authoritative "in relation to the subject at hand". Although Tariq Ali is certainly notable, and a reliable source for some subjects, it was never shown that he is an accepted reliable source for any aspect of antisemitism; and this article is about a particular aspect of antisemitism. Moreover there are notable reliable sources who are equally critical of New-Antisemitism, so there is no real need for that source to create balance. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

To bring it back to my earlier point, even if other editors disagree with my edit, calling that "trolling" violates WP:no personal attacks, and WP:civility. That is why I filed a civility complaint against Commodore Sloat. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Part of WP:CIV says This policy is not a weapon to be used against other contributors. I think focusing on the edit and not the perceived level of civility of other editors would be more helpful.Gerardw (talk) 01:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Describing edits you disagree with as "trolling" is a serious issue, and a violation of both WP:CIV and WP:NPA. This is not an issue to be swept under the rug. As for Malcolm's edit, he raises a reasonable point; what makes Ali qualified to comment on antisemitism? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jayjg, I don’t see why you make these kinds of comments. Just above, you stated: “Saying something is ‘trolling’ is never a ‘simple observation’; rather, it's inevitably an uncivil personal attack. Please edit accordingly in the future.”[13] Now in response to a perfectly reasonable comment, you instruct Csloat to comment only on the content and not on the contributor. You ignore that Malcolm just accused Csloat of “repeating crap.” Are you kidding? When you do this it seems like you’re turning the discussion into a game. Mackan79 (talk) 05:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article Formatting

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

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

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

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

Counterpunch Reliable Source?

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

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

it looks good

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

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

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

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

Alternative images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you even know what non sequitur means?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My understanding is that the issue has been through mediation [14]. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

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

I oppose removing it. There are, as I recall, others also opposed. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I support removal of the image. Shall we start a formal !vote at this time? The last time this was discussed it appeared the consensus was overwhelmingly for removal, but the image stayed up. csloat (talk) 20:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

A number of people have supported retention of the so-called "Zombietime" image over a period of several years, including me. It is not just one or two people. This image illustrates the subject of the article very well (as does the more recently added image.) I notice that the photo (as it appears in the article) has become much smaller than it used to be when it was really controversial. If that was supposed to be a compromise, it seems like a reasonable one. 6SJ7 (talk) 17:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me like the primary objection to removing the current image is that it is a good representation of "new antisemitism". I would argue that the image linked above, which is from the same source and same protest, is by all standards a better representation. It's less ambiguous and benefits from its choice by an academic source. Malcolm, if you disagree, would you care to elaborate? Shii (tock) 20:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Instead my elaborating what has been discussed extensivly, perhaps you could read previous discussion, much of which is in the archives. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

So you're withdrawing your objection? For the record, I'm not interested in talking points like "this is old news, the article is perfect now." It is my opinion that an image with a citation is better than an image without a citation no matter what sort of elaborate discussions may have happened in the past. Shii (tock) 20:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Where did I say my position has changed? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

If anyone can provide a reason why an image lacking citations is better than an image with citations, please let me know now. Otherwise I will swap ou the images on December 26. Shii (tock) 16:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My take is as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear CJCurrie,

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

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

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

Heyo CJCurrie,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It seems you're also coming at this with a different idea of what is the perfect image, though. My understanding of a perfect image is that it best captures the coverage of the topic, consistent with our various policies. You're suggesting that the flag is more ambiguous about whether it's antisemitic, but this is exactly the issue discussed in our section on 1980s - present day: political convergence: "Historian Robert Wistrich addressed the issue in a 1984 lecture delivered in the home of Israeli President Chaim Herzog, in which he argued that a "new anti-Semitic anti-Zionism" was emerging, distinguishing features of which were the equation of Zionism with Nazism and the belief that Zionists had actively collaborated with Nazis during World War II." When this is the relevant discussion, it's hard for me to see what could be a closer or more encyclopedic match than the sourced image of the flag. Mackan79 (talk) 07:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Tariq ali section

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

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

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

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

Are you saying the New Left Review is not an academic publication? Shii (tock) 06:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, because it isn't. <<-armon->> (talk) 12:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Oooh, I'm sorry to hear that. My friend published a book review in that journal. Shii (tock) 16:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Armon is incorrect, methinks. New Left Review is quite definitely an academic journal. csloat (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

See academic journal. New Left Review doesn't meet the criteria. <<-armon->> (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You'll have to be more specific than that -- which criteria do you believe that it does not meet? Let us know so that we can correct your false impression. The journal is a peer-reviewed academic journal (with quite a bit of standing, at that, well beyond "political" circles). Academics in literary studies, communication studies, cultural studies, and philosophy, among others, can attest to that. csloat (talk) 23:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Specifically, he argues that the concept of new antisemitism amounts to little more than an attempt to subvert the language in the interests of the State of Israel. He writes that the campaign against "the supposed new 'anti-semitism'" in modern Europe is a "cynical ploy on the part of the Israeli Government to seal off the Zionist state from any criticism of its regular and consistent brutality against the Palestinians." The new antisemitism is, in fact, "Zionist blackmail," he argues. He argues that most pro-Palestinian, anti-Zionist groups that emerged after the 1967 war were in fact careful to observe the distinction between anti-Zionism and antisemitism. And, as Shii points out, he is an academic, for what it's worth. But that's neither here nor there-- academic or no, his opinion is notable in this context and certainly belongs in the article. Cheers, csloat (talk) 06:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, there was a long debate on this and the consensus was about 12-1 that the paragraph should stay in. Now it may be 12-2 but there's still a consensus for including it; it would be best not to edit against that consensus until it changes. Best, csloat (talk) 06:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes I know. I don't think you understood my question. What does Ali say which Finkelstein doesn't? If he's saying the same thing, which he is, then there's really no point in including a poorly-sourced activist. If we included everyone with an opinion, the article would rapidly become a mess. Why don't we add Ali to the further readings if he's not already there? <<-armon->> (talk) 12:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Finkelstein does not say that the concept of new antisemitism amounts to little more than an attempt to subvert the language in the interests of the State of Israel. He doesn't say that the campaign against "the supposed new 'anti-semitism'" in modern Europe is a "cynical ploy on the part of the Israeli Government to seal off the Zionist state from any criticism of its regular and consistent brutality against the Palestinians." He doesn't call new antisemitism "Zionist blackmail," He doesn't say that most pro-Palestinian, anti-Zionist groups that emerged after the 1967 war were in fact careful to observe the distinction between anti-Zionism and antisemitism. Is that better? I don't mean to be facetious, but I don't see Finkelstein saying any of these things; can you point out where he does? And he's neither "poorly sourced" nor simply an "activist." He's published two dozen books and is a respected academic. Make sense? csloat (talk) 16:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

That is exactly the problem. Tariq Ali is venting his anger at Israel, in the very biased source CounterPunch. It is just accusations with no scholarly back up to it. That is one of the reasons I have argued for its removal. The other main problem is that Tariq Ali, while certainly notable, is not a WP:reliable source for the subject of this article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if Ali is right or wrong; what matters is that his opinion is notable. I could certainly say the same of many other sources in the page, but I'm not as concerned as you about whether I agree with these notable figures. The RS issue has been more than dealt with; there is no sense in repeating it if you're not willing to try to refute the arguments raised about this over the past several months. Cheers, csloat (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I did not say he was either right, or wrong. I said that he is in no way a reliable source for this article on antisemitism, and the CounterPunch is not a reliable source here either. On the other hand, Finkelstein is a reliable source, and he is equally critical of this subject. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, the reliable source issue has been beaten to death; if you have nothing to add to the argument, please concede it gracefully. Ali is a well respected historian with over 20 books to his name; Counterpunch may be a liberal opinion source but unless you have evidence that they made up this Ali quote, your objection is specious. Cheers, csloat (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Consensus? So far I see two editors on each side. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It's still repetitive.

Finkelstein: "not to fight antisemitism but rather to exploit the historical suffering of Jews in order to immunize Israel against criticism"

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

They are saying the same thing.

Also, calling CounterPunch "liberal" is very misleading -it's a far-left "radical" newsletter.

Rather than simply asserting that Ali's opinion is "notable", sloat, perhaps you could explain why you think we should include him, rather than any number of other activists on the topic. <<-armon->> (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm: "So far"? You are certainly well aware that there was about a 12-1 majority in favor of keeping the material since you played a major part in that discussion (you being the 1). Are you really claiming you don't remember that discussion? It's right there in the archive, as numerous folks have pointed out since the new discussion began.

Armon: Ali and Finkelstein are quite different there. Ali makes the more radical (and probably wrong, imho) claim that this is a ploy by the Israeli government. Finkelstein also says nothing about the distortion of language that Ali addresses, nor does he discuss the Palestinian activist distinction between antisemitism and antizionism, which Ali also mentions. All of this is clear in what I quoted above; they are clearly not "saying the same thing." As for Counterpunch, it really doesn't matter what part of the political spectrum you think it belongs on; these things are pretty subjective anyway but quite irrelevant to the fact that it's a reliable source for reporting Ali's notable opinion. As for why we should include Ali instead of any other notable activist, I didn't realize there was a mutually exclusive choice being made. Let us know who you would like to include (I believe you mentioned Mr. Duke before?) and a link to the reliable source with the material on it; I'm pretty sure that Wikipedia is still not a paper encyclopedia. I apologize if I gave the impression that the Ali section must be retained instead of some section that you wanted in there. Cheers, csloat (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I think WP:RS comments on the topic are generally included unless perhaps it is a space issue. If one sentence repeats something above it could be modified, but that wouldn't seem to be a reason to remove the comment in full.

Currently, Finkelstein is presented as disagreeing with the idea that there is a rise in antisemitism at all, while Ali is presented on the idea that criticism of Israel should not be conflated with antisemitism. These may overlap, but they do represent different points. Mackan79 (talk) 23:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)