This is an archive of past discussions about New antisemitism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
To move forward i have created a proposals page here. This is not a straw poll. The aim of this is to discuss the technical aspects of the images themselves and not how they relate to NAS nor is it a place to discuss sourcing. The images included are all sourced in some way as being attributed to new antisemitism. SeddσntalkEditor Review12:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what the sources say, but I would guess that by itself it's more a continuation of the "old" antisemitism. If it's an attempt to exonerate the Nazis, it's "old". If it's an attempt to reduce sympathy for Zionism, it's "new". But check the sources. —Ashley Y03:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Holocaust denial started the day World War II was over, and it has nothing to do with "reducing sympathy for Zionism". If it comes from the left or Muslim countries, or equates Israel with Nazi Germany, then it's "New". Jayjg (talk)04:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Ahmadinejad seems to be denying the holocaust to reduce sympathy for Zionism here, though this is only my impression. —Ashley Y05:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's a good idea to try to figure out what Ahmadinejad really means when he says things. I take him at face value; if he says the Holocaust was a myth, then that's what he believes. Jayjg (talk)05:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
So wait a minute -- "new" antisemitism is just antisemitism from the left (which we've already established goes back at least to the turn of the 20th century) or from Muslims (which goes back about as far)? What makes any of this "new"? csloat (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the abusive non sequitur, Jay. I was asking what reliable sources say on this topic, not passionately advocating anything. csloat (talk) 23:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
"The new anti-Semitism is coming simultaneously from three different directions: first, a radicalized Islamic youth inflamed by extremist rhetoric; second, a left-wing anti-American cognitive elite with strong representation in the European media; third, a resurgent far right, as anti-Muslim as it is anti-Jewish."[1] These sources are all in the article. Jayjg (talk)23:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't respond to the questions I asked at all. The question is, what makes it "new"? Is it just old antisemitism coming from these sources or is there something qualitatively different about it? Or to offer an oversimplified and rather silly example, if a "radicalized Islamic youth" is standing with a member of the American Nazi party and both are discussing the Protocols, is only one of them being a "new" antisemite? Does plain old "antisemitism" not exist anymore, and all current antisemitism is "new" antisemitism? csloat (talk) 00:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Jack Fischel, chair of history at Millersville University of Pennsylvania, writes that new antisemitism is a new phenomenon stemming from a coalition of "leftists, vociferously opposed to the policies of Israel, and right-wing antisemites, committed to the destruction of Israel, [who] were joined by millions of Muslims, including Arabs, who immigrated to Europe ... and who brought with them their hatred of Israel in particular and of Jews in general." It is this new political alignment, he argues, that makes new antisemitism unique.
That needed some work. He's not the chair of history there [2], although he apparently was once. That's also a weird article. It's a book review. He's reviewing Chesler's "The New Anti-Semitism" and some related books. It's not always clear when Fischer is quoting and when he's writing his own opinions. --John Nagle (talk) 02:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, he was once chair of the department. He appears to be professor emeritus now. Is that particularly relevant? Jayjg (talk)01:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Holocaust denial is holocaust denial and new antisemitism means different things to different people. Some people may think that holocaust denial is a part of new antisemitism. // Liftarn (talk) 08:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
The reliable sources we have so far don't seem to make such a connection. So far, the decades of sources seem to indicate that the meaning changes over time to be whatever the current issue is. "New" antisemitism just seems in practice to mean "current", as opposed to "historical". It's a label that's put on papers, books, talks, and articles to indicate that the subject is the present, not the past. --John Nagle (talk) 17:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
With all the disparate definitions of "new antisemitism", about all one can really say at this point is that something labeled "new antisemitism" probably isn't going to start by covering Moses vs. Ramses II, or Venetian banking. --John Nagle (talk) 17:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Holocaust denial is probably more prevalent in traditional anti-semitism from the rigth (on which side most holocaust-deniers are), New antisemitism is specifically a catch all phrase used against people who arent actually being antisemitic, thats why holocaust denial is not such a big part of it.86.156.52.67 (talk) 20:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
"Holocaust denial started the day World War II was over, and it has nothing to do with "reducing sympathy for Zionism". If it comes from the left or Muslim countries, or equates Israel with Nazi Germany, then it's "New". Jayjg (talk) 04:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC) " I believe that Jayjg has it exactly right.Elan26 (talk) 18:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Elan26
That appears to be one of the wronger things Jayg has written, and he has written a lot of them. What makes it "new" has nothing to do with its "newness", in other words, but who it comes from? Why is it called, well, "new" antisemitism and not "leftist antisemitism" or "Muslim antisemitism" then? csloat (talk) 00:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Section missing
The term "New antisemitism" first appeared actually DURING the time of the holocaust. Many pacifists who were initially sympathetic toward Jews became antisemites because they preferred to be at PEACE with Germany rather than side with the Jews. The Jewish suffering seemed a legitimate sacrifice for the purpose of world peace. This is the first time the term was coined. There is quite a bit of literature on it that can be expanded. Analogically, this is the same new antisemitism of today, where many prefer to have no conflict with the Arab world, with the Oil crisis etc, and they are willing to sacrifice Israel and the Jewish people again for this purpose of what they believe will be world peace. Amoruso (talk) 23:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Found a source for that. Here's an academic cite to a WWII-era meaning of "new antisemitism" in "Myth, Style, Substance and the Totalitarian Dynamic in Fascist Italy". See note 110, Ben-Ghiat, Fascist Modernities, 149, 156–7. In Dictating Demography: The Problem of Population in Fascist Italy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), Carl Ipsen traced the new antisemitism to the wider official demographic effort to create a race of hardy conquerors and childbearers; see 185–94. --John Nagle (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
No, the term “new antisemitism” was not used during the Holocaust. A term is a phrase with a stable, codified, accepted meaning. What you’re talking about is a nonce phrase. Different thing.
This happens all the time. An ordinary word like antisemitism is combined with an ordinary modifier like “new” any number of times in any number of discrete contexts, and there’s nothing in particular connecting them, and then ‘‘voila’’ – someone uses it in a specific context and because of the media moment or the political setting or the zeitgeist or whatever it takes hold, ‘‘and an incidental nonce phrase becomes a term.’’ This moment, deliriously exciting as it can be for some people, does not magically transform every random earlier instance of the nonce phrase into an example of the “term,” nor the assemblage of these random discursive moments into a conceptual lineage.
New wave cinema refers to French experimental film in the early 1960s, which played with Hollywood continuity conventions and turned them on their head. Revving up your Googlebooks engines and roaring through the Gutenberg galaxy looking for earlier instances of the nonce phrase “new wave” with relation to cinema will not produce an aesthetic genealogy; it will produce nonsense. Nor does Jean-Luc Godard have anything to do with Adam and the Ants.
Same deal with New historicism. New historicism wasn’t invented – didn’t, that is, become a ‘‘term’’ – the day someone first typed those two words in that order. It became a term in the 1980s when Stephen Greenblatt fused microhistory with Foucauldian critique and brought the resulting methodology to bear on Elizabethan literature, profoundly influencing the course of subsequent literary criticism.
Same deal with “new” lotsa stuff.
Or even more distinctive phrases, like “irrational exuberance.” Who knows, you may find it in Dickens. Certainly my heart’s darling Skimpole in ‘‘Bleak House’’ could be a bit irrationally exuberant. Rev up them googles, boys.
But “new” is an especially, ahem, ‘‘time-bound’’ word, and kind of ‘‘especially’’ lends itself to nonce use.
We went through months of mediation simply to establish that the appearance of the words “new antisemitism” in a half-century-old ‘‘Commentary’’ piece about Stalinist Russia had nothing to do with the subject of this article.
It is astonishing how effortlessly other areas of the encyclopedia escape the conceptual confusions that routinely plague this page.--G-Dett (talk) 03:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Picture
The article says this concept of 'new antisemitism' originated in the 1960s (1967 the earliest reference given) but there is picture of a Nazi cartoon from 1938. What's the deal with that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.174.152 (talk) 12:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
The deal, contrary to what csloat says, is to provide a reference for comparison between anti-Semitic Nazi propaganda and images presently circulating in the Arab world. ← Michael Safyan (talk)15:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
That is original research, Michael. Please see WP:SYN especially for clarification. Providing references for comparison that aren't provided in the available literature is clearly an original synthesis. csloat (talk) 02:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that it's not a simple illustration of the article topic. It's pushing an opinion. There's no agreement over whether it's "new antisemitism" or "old antisemitism", and no reliable sources say it's "new antisemitism". So we have to leave it out. —Ashley Y08:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Result of Mediation
As many of you may be aware the recent mediation regarding the lede image on this page closed yesterday. I would like to clarify the situation. There is an agreement that the zombietime image is to be removed from the lede. There was no decision or agreement in regards to the use of that or any other image elsewhere in the article that includes whether it is used elsewhere. I ask you all not to continue edit warring over this and to bring the discussion to this talk page. SeddσntalkEditor Review00:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the image. Now, let's get back to discussion. What are the good and bad points about the images inclusion in the article? We might have already gone over this in the mediation, but it would be good to hear opinions here about why it should/shouldn't be included, and the reasons. RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter00:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I only looked at the consensus for inclusion of the picture in the lead, but after clarification I see there was no consensus for or against inclusion in the main article body. That said - the page is protected now, so it's a good time to discuss where the picture should be placed, if at all. RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter02:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
It does not belong in the article either. We should stick to images that actually can be shown to illustrate the concept this article is about. The same is true of the 1938 cartoon and probably of the Protocols photo as well (though I understand the latter is an image from a 2005 reprint, so perhaps there will be some discussion on that one). csloat (talk) 02:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Your POV is interesting, though inaccurate, but not particularly relevant in any event. The mediation only discussed removing it from the lede, not from the article. Jayjg (talk)02:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
How does that work? If the image is included, then the people that want the image, and one side gets their way again. I suggest you take a read of m:wrong version - just about every article protected gets complaints that it's been protected in the wrong version. Although I did remove the image, I don't personally care either way, I was just basing it on the mediation conclusion, but I see I was sort of wrong there. Now, discuss where/if the picture should go in the article and we can move forward. RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter13:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
My understanding is that the mediation did not decide to remove the image from the article. If I am wrong about that I am sorry, but that is my understanding. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
You are correct in that the mediation did not agree the complete removal of the image from the page, and also I will point ryan has said he realises this in hindsight. The reason for the protection was not as a result of a conflict with what was agreed in mediation. It was that there was an edit war and there were clearly misunderstanding of what was going on but there was no discussion occuring on this talk page. As ryan pointed out, the inclusion or exclusion of this image would leave one side or another at a a loss so it is best to discuss this here. SeddσntalkEditor Review19:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
The picture has been in this article for two years now, and there has been a long-standing consensus for its inclusion. If people want to remove it now, they'll have to come up with a new consensus, and not one that relies on misunderstanding the mediations, or on non-existent or invented image policies. Jayjg (talk)02:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
The fact that the picture has remained in the article for 2 years indicates that there has been no consensus to remove it. That, apparently is still the case. Jayjg (talk)06:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
There is no consensus to remove it, but there's been no "long-standing consensus for its inclusion" either. I suppose now there's no consensus to restore it (but equally, no consensus not to). —Ashley Y10:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't have any desire to repeat my reasons for opposing Zombietime yet again, but I really must take issue with this. The Zombietime image has been contentious since SlimVirgin first uploaded it in 2006, and I can guarantee that there's no consensus to include it now. CJCurrie (talk) 01:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Contentious, yes, but in the article continuously since then. It does not appear that a consensus to overturn that has yet developed. Jayjg (talk)00:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The image was removed based on a misinterpretation of the mediation. There was no consensus to remove it. There still is none. Feel free to try to get a consensus for removal. Jayjg (talk)00:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Do you suppose that it should be retained, simply by virtue of having been a contentious and disputed image since 2006? CJCurrie (talk) 04:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Do you suppose that it should be removed, simply by virtue of misinterpreting the result of the mediation, and then edit-warring to retain that misinterpretation? Jayjg (talk)00:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't see the relevance of that last question. Could you explain what you're referring to, and how it answers in any way the question beforehand? That is, after all, the purpose of discussion. --Relata refero (disp.)04:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Jay, this is low-grade trolling by any standard. The real question is: if a lot of writers with links to the Arab nationalist movement described something they called, let's say, "Soft Anti-Arabism," and used this notion (according to other writers with links to the Zionist movement) as a distraction from the crimes of Arab governments, would it be appropriate for Wikipedia to place this image prominently on our "Soft Anti-Arabism" page?
Actually, that brings up the question of whether we would even have a "Soft Anti-Arabism" page in the first place, and if so, whether it would be anything but a bunch of quotes from CAMERA and MEMRI and the like condemning the whole idea... but that's another story. <eleland/talkedits> 23:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Eleland, please keep any future false and uncivil comments to yourself, and answer the question. Is the image on the right a reliably sourced image showing Anti-Arabism? Please explain why or why not. Jayjg (talk)00:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
He's made an argument, actually, to which you have not responded. Any response beginning "What argument?" will naturally be ignored. --Relata refero (disp.)06:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
He's made a poor analogy to a hypothetical situation which does not exist. I've questions about a real situation: that picture is found in the Anti-Arabism article, inserted by, unsurprisingly, User:Liftarn, one of the editors who kept insisting that the Zombietime image needed better referencing. Now, what is your response, Relata refero? Is the image on the right a reliably sourced image showing Anti-Arabism? Please explain why or why not - this is an important policy question which has a direct impact on the validity of the zombietime image in this article (and many other images in other articles). Jayjg (talk)06:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Have you stopped beating your wife? Now, what is your response, Jay? Please explain why or why not.
But srsly. G-Dett, on the mediation talk page, dated 15:42, 27 June 2008, and 21:21, 30 June 2008, refuted the very argument you're retreading here, in her typical equanimitous-yet-devastating fashion. If you did have an answer to her refutation, you've yet to provide it after a month and a half - and now you try to start again, from the beginning, as if you can just take mulligans until you get your way. Pick your wikilink - WP:FORUMSHOP, WP:GAME, WP:POINT, WP:TE, WP:TROLL, etc - really, they all apply. Jay, please show a little respect, and cease this disruption.
I'm not sure who made this comment, but if you have a point to make, please make it here. These uncivildisruptive comments are both a violation of policy, and completely unhelpful, as are the strained and irrelevent analogies. These are simple questions which will lead to further fruitful and illuminating discussion. Failure to answer is simply another failure to advance a reason to exclude the Zombietime image. Jayjg (talk)23:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
That's Eleland there. In his first post, he brings up the relevant point that whereas "New antisemitism" is a theoretical concept, things like antisemitism and anti-Arabism are not. In this second, unsigned post, he reminds you that you brought this same argument to the mediation page in June, and I rebutted it in considerable detail, and that you never responded to that rebuttal, but are now simply reprising your rebutted argument.--G-Dett (talk) 00:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to request that this "troll" nonsense stop at once. It is perfectly possible to build a reasonable refutation to what Jay is offering without meaningless insults, unless people feel that their arguments are so weak that insults are all that are left. This is not appropriate. IronDuke00:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Again, just so the point doesn't get lost in all this back-and-forth about trolling and disruption and incivility: Jay is reprising an argument that he first articulated in June, and that was rebutted in considerable detail by me with no response from him – neither then nor now.--G-Dett (talk) 00:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
It's on the mediation talk page. Eleland gives the time stamps above. I'm not sure I do agree with your point, but I'm certain it's a distraction, since both Eleland and I have responded substantively to the argument being re-floated here.--G-Dett (talk) 03:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I refuse to believe you are that easily distracted. So... my point might be correct? 50-50? 70-30 my way? IronDuke00:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Every form of discrimination is a "theoretical concept", including antisemitism, anti-Arabism, Islamophobia, and New antisemitism, with various definitions, supporting incidents to buttress the concept, and counter-claims that the term is being used to suppress "legitimate criticism". Your argument was an argument, not a "rebuttal". Jayjg (talk)00:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Those who say that charges of racism, islamophobia, antisemitism, etc. are thrown around too freely and serve to suppress legitimate criticism are not mounting a “counter-claim” to a “theoretical concept.” This is like saying that Depression is a “theoretical concept” because some think it’s overdiagnosed. Please let’s just use words in their normal sense. Your definition of all forms of discrimination as “theoretical concepts” is strange, strained, and not at all supported by any dictionary or other reference work I can find.
The way to tell that NAS is a theory and Islamophobia isn't is simply to look at the definitions:
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. (Wikipedia)
versus –
Islamophobia, noun. Hatred or fear of Islam, esp. as a political force; hostility or prejudice towards Muslims. (Oxford English Dictionary)
All kinds of discrimination are a theoretical concepts, of course; how could they not be? One classifies a set of behaviors according to some conceptual organizing principle. You are confusing how well accepted a concept is with whether or not it is one to begin with. Islamophobia is a fairly recent, though reasonably well accepted, concept. New antisemitism is less well accepted. There is no difference in kind. Jayjg (talk)01:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I know of no definition of discrimination that “classifies a set of behaviors according to some conceptual organizing principle." You've simply devised an extremely generic formulation that kinda sorta describes the theory of "New antisemitism," though badly and awkwardly, and then tried to foist it onto phenomena like racism, where, despite its vagueness, it doesn't fit.
Ironduke is having some of the same conceptual difficulties as you; reading my response to his odd list below – with especial attention to the key distinction you and he have missed, between alleged examples of a thing and defining features of a thing – may help you get your head around the problem.--G-Dett (talk) 04:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
G-Dett, the only one who "is having some of the same conceptual difficulties" is, apparently, you. You seem to think that "antisemitism" is some sort of physical object, like antimony. However, it is actually a conceptual description of a set of beliefs and behaviors. Your acknowledgement that the concept of racism is "vague"; indeed, it is vague because it too is a conceptual description of a set of beliefs and behaviors, one which most proponents do not believe applies to them. Jayjg (talk)02:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Jay, my post didn't refer to racism as vague, it referred to your formulation (“classifies a set of behaviors according to some conceptual organizing principle") as vague. And despite its vagueness, still not applying to "racism." The key distinction, once again, is between alleged examples of a thing and defining features of a thing. Many things have been described as examples of racism (or Islamophobia, or antisemitism, or homophobia, etc.), but the definition of any of these forms of discrimination does not depend on the examples. All manner of things – from negative views of affirmative action to the historical appropriation of rock 'n roll by white musicians – have been described as examples of racism, but the definition of (and recognized existence of) racism does not depend on any particular view of these things or any necessary connections between them. NAS is absolutely and fundamentally different in this respect; what you're vaguely describing as a "set of beliefs and behaviors" (leftist anti-Zionism, rightist conspiracy-mongering, Islamist opposition to the existence of Israel, focused censure of Israeli policies by Western academics) are in fact defining features of NAS – take away a certain view of these things, or more importantly take away the hypothesized links between them, and there's no "new antisemitism." NAS is a sort of meta-theory, in that through these linkages between necessary touchstones (not incidental examples) it presents an analysis of a larger situation, rather than naming a ground-level form of discrimination – which is why, for example, no one has ever been referred to as a "new antisemite." I hope this clarifies.--G-Dett (talk) 03:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary, New antisemitism does indeed refer to a set of specific actions and beliefs, that don't require an overarching set of linkages. Demonization of Israel, the Jewish state, would be one of the primary examples. Jayjg (talk)00:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
If "new antisemitism does indeed refer to a set," how can the members of this set not be "linked?" Unless we adopt some bizarre ad hoc definition of what "a set" or "linked" means, that is an outright logical impossibility. And, Jay, this article has treated the various alleged aspects of new antisemitism as "linked," at least in the view of NAS proponents, since its inception. If you really believe in this "unlinked set theory," then why haven't you objected to the article or tried to correct it? <eleland/talkedits> 21:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Policy says included images must illustrate the article. So how do we verify that this image illustrates Anti-Arabism? In this case, I believe it's obvious to everyone that death threats against Arabs are an example of anti-Arabism, but if this were disputed in good faith, we should find a reliable source that mentioned that. Also, there need to be more facts about the image. Is that Hebrew? What Hebrew words are they? What do they mean? Where was this image taken? Overall answer: borderline, room for improvement. —Ashley Y02:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Spray paint is cheap. Cemetery racism is easy to perpetrate and easy to fake because cemeteries stand empty most of the time. Therefore, episodes of cemetery racism should be cited form a police investigation or newspaper report. An unsourced photo is not enough.Elan26 (talk) 18:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Elan26
Huh? If someone spray paints a grave, it is "fake" unless the police report on it? Spray painting a cemetery is spray painting a cemetery either way, isn't it? Anyway, I'm not sure why this discussion is relevant here. csloat (talk) 00:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Csloat, what reliable sources indicate that this photo is an example of anti-Arabism? Which sources indicate that it is anything other than an entirely photoshopped image, or a picture faked in any one of a dozen other ways? Please recall your extremely strict sourcing requirements for the zombietime image. Jayjg (talk)02:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
My posts are entirely on-topic, and I wouldn't recommend your trying to remove them. Feel free to remove your own, though. Jayjg (talk)00:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I repeat, anything not directly related to this article will be moved wholesale to the appropriate talkpage. Please move on to constructive conversation. Your recommendations are irrelevant; You must have noticed that if, as here, they are neither sufficiently on-topic nor informed by policy - or indeed, the facts - then editors tend not follow them immediately. --Relata refero (disp.)04:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Please heed Relata Refero's remarks regarding staying on topic, and please refrain from placing words in other people's mouths. It is disconcerting, not to mention uncivil. Thanks. csloat (talk) 09:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Please refrain from requiring novel or invented policies for images in this article; they are disconcerting, not to mention disruptive. Thanks. Jayjg (talk)00:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Again, please refrain from attributing positions to me I have not espoused. If you find something disconcerting, perhaps you should examine your own actions on this page. Relata, please feel free to remove unrelated comments such as these, including my own. csloat (talk) 05:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
It's generally accepted that if someone describes themselves as "Islamophobic", then Wikipedia may refer to them as "Islamophobic"; certainly we've done the same with "anti-Semitic". This verifies that this picture illustrates Islamophobia. —Ashley Y02:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
As was continually asked of the zombietime image, where is the evidence that that picture taken at the demonstration claimed? Is that image, as was asserted for the zombietime image, not representative of anything but one crazy person? Was that image staged? Where are sources for any of this? Jayjg (talk)00:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
That is just one person, but one self-described Islamophobic person. The zombietime image is also just one person, but we can't say that it's "new antisemitism". Indeed the "counterfeit Jews" thing makes it look more like "old antisemitism" to me. It shouldn't be too hard to find a reliable source linking "counterfeit Jews" to antisemitism.
Furthermore, if we did find a reliable source that linked the image to the "new antisemitism" concept, we'd have to mention the source in the caption. That way it would be clear that the link is just one particular POV of the many expressed in the article. Part of the trouble as it stands is that without such a source mentioned, the link appears objective. Would Brian Klug consider the placard to be an example of "new antisemitism"? Would Tariq Ali? If not, we need to know who does.
I've generally assumed there's no deceit in any of the pictures, including zombietime's. We don't know for sure that there isn't any photo manipulation, but the sense I'm reading from the policy section is that good faith is assumed until found otherwise. —Ashley Y04:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, we have no idea if that's an islamophobic person. It's someone holding a sign with a button on it saying "Islamophobic And Proud of It". We have no idea of the provenance of the sign, or anything else. And, rather fascinatingly, look at all the restrictions you have suddenly decided to place on any image depicting New antisemitism - restrictions that are required for no other images on Wikipedia, including the ones purportedly demonstrating Islamophobia and Anti-Arabism. Jayjg (talk)01:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I'm not placing restrictions on any image depicting "new antisemitism". I'm placing restrictions on any image which someone claims depicts "new antisemitism" for which we can't verify the claim. It's exactly the same as the New Statesman cover. Is that "new antisemitism"? The caption doesn't say that it is, only that two people say it is, so it's OK. Who's saying the placard is? Likewise, I would be perfectly happy if this image caption were amended to say "a protester... describes himself as Islamophobic". —Ashley Y01:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Err, yes, of course you're placing restrictions on images depicting New antisemitism, restrictions you (nor anyone else) demands for any other images. Regarding the Islamophobia image, we have no idea whether or not the picture taker created the sign himself (it looks like it would take about 5 minutes), then had his buddy hold it for him. For all we know the picture holder is Muslim. Jayjg (talk)02:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
My posts are entirely on-topic, and I wouldn't recommend your trying to remove them. Feel free to remove your own, though. Jayjg (talk)00:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not placing any restrictions on images depicting "new antisemitism", only on an image that someone claims depicts "new antisemitism", and the only restriction is that we can verify that it really is "new antisemitism". By contrast, holding up a sign saying "Islamophobic and proud of it" counts prima facie as a declaration. If the zombietime image said "new antisemite and proud of it", that would count. The main problem with your claims is that they all rely on some form of manipulation or bad faith of the photo uploaders. I have no reason to believe that the zombietime image was manipulated, but there's no connection that has been made between it and "new antisemitism", besides the opinions of some editors.
Images are not supposed to propose new ideas. This image appears to depict someone at a demonstration holding up a sign claiming to be "Islamophobic and proud of it". There's no new idea here: if someone self-identifies as Islamophobic, then we can call that Islamophobia. The zombietime image appears to depict a placard being held with various images, some of which are fairly clearly anti-Semitic, but we don't have anything connecting that with this highly-contested "new antisemitism" idea. —Ashley Y22:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not placing any restrictions on images depicting "new antisemitism", only on an image that someone claims depicts "new antisemitism", and the only restriction is that we can verify that it really is "new antisemitism". Have you ever recommended or seen this kind of restriction for any other image on any other page? If so, please provide examples, so we can better understand what kind of requirements you are referring to. Jayjg (talk)00:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment
Jayjg, I don't think anybody questions whether the Zombietime image portrays antisemitism. The question — as you almost certainly know — is whether it represents new antisemitism. Since the very existence of new antisemitism is questioned by some, I think the issue of whether a photo is described by a WP:RS as new antisemitism is a reasonable one.
If you want to bring us pictures, bring photos of the Loch Ness monster or Bigfoot — things whose existence is asserted by some and questioned by others. A picture shouldn't be used to illustrate the Loch Ness monster unless a WP:RS described it as a photo of the monster. — Malik Shabazz (talk·contribs) 19:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Applying that method of argument, it would be reasonable to argue that the photograph does not show Islamophobia, but rather jingoism. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Malik, thanks for your response. From my perspective there are two errors in your argument:
a) The very existence of Islamophobia is questioned by some (see the article itself for more detail), and
b) How is it possible for people who deny the very existence of New antisemitism to judge whether an image is an example of it? And yet, here we are in this absurd situation, where people who deny the existence of it also claim that various images are not examples of it.
The difference would be that multiple reliable sources have discussed and asserted the existence of New antisemitism. In the future please use analogies that are, well, analogous. Thanks. Jayjg (talk)23:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I would also add, almost all Wikipedia pictures are examples of WP:OR. The Zombietime image is the best example of what those who believe that NAS exists mean when they talk about it. It has virtually every element, all on one placard. IronDuke00:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Jay, regarding point (a), the article quotes a few people who criticize the term "Islamophobia" – taking issue with the "phobia" part (said critics think hatred of Islam isn't "irrational"), or with the "Islamo" part (Islam is a belief system, and opposition to it shouldn't be conflated with bigotry), etc. These criticisms are almost etymological in nature – no one I know of is claiming that bigotry against Arabs and Muslims doesn't exist, and this is what the term means, like it or not. They are analogous to criticism of the term "antisemitic" because "Arabs are Semites too," or "Judeophobia" because Judaism is a belief system, and shouldn't be conflated with etc. etc. They are not analogous to the widespread and incredibly detailed debate about whether "new antisemitism" is a valid or even coherent concept. NAS is a kind of meta-concept, whereas Islamophobia is just the more-or-less-accepted baseline term for the phenomenon of bigotry against Arabs and Muslims; do you not see that? As I wrote in my detailed rebuttal of this argument the first time you floated it (a rebuttal you never responded to):
NAS is in fact not only a theory but a fairly grand sort of theory, in that it purports to offer the interpretive key to a large, multifaceted historical situation encompassing everything from the safety of the Jewish people to the fate of Zionism to the direction of Western anticolonial activism to the rise of militant Islam to the state of Middle East studies in American universities. It is not yet in any dictionary I know of, and no mainstream news outlets use it in their neutral voice as an accepted term. The word "Islamophobia" by contrast – like good old-fashioned lower-case a "antisemitism" – doesn't itself imply any historical specificity, doesn't hold that anything is "rising," doesn't purport to explain a total situation, doesn't imply that anything is disguising itself or manifesting itself as something else. It just names a recognized form of bigotry, which people of good faith may agree or disagree is operative in this or that situation.
I also mentioned it was in the OED.
Regarding point (b), this is a false paradox. Even those who are skeptical of the NAS concept can recognize when an image captures what the faulty theory is supposed to be about. I know what the Easter bunny looks like.--G-Dett (talk) 00:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
G-Dett, the critics in question don't take issue with the "phobia" terminology or the "Islamo" part of it; rather, they take issue with the underlying claim that there is such a thing. MANIFESTO: Together facing the new totalitarianism, for example, describes it as "a wretched concept that confuses criticism of Islam as a religion and stigmatisation of those who believe in it." As for your argument that it is "the interpretive key to a large, multifaceted historical situation", hardly. It's a description of a fairly obvious form of bigotry; even Finkelstein admits that at least part of what is described as New antisemitism is, in fact, antisemitism - he just thinks it's a perfectly predictable sort of antisemitism, because, after all, Israel is such an egregiously horrible country, and it is populated and supported by Jews. Regarding point (b), it's not a false paradox at all; those who dispute the existence of New antisemitism believe it cannot be captured in an image, because the concept is meaningless. On the other hand, it's quite easy to capture images of the Easter Bunny (or Santa Claus), because everyone agrees on what the concept is - a mythical being with certain properties etc. As I've stated before, analogies only work when they're actually analogous. Jayjg (talk)00:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
You and I have previously discussed the MANIFESTO group letter, remember? Its thirteenth paragraph indeed describes Islamophobia as a “wretched concept.” That is as far as I know the only sourced comment appearing to challenge the very existence of Islamophobia (as opposed to the extent of it, whether it's overdiagnosed, etc.), and that one sentence does not establish that NAS and Islamophobia are comparably disputed “concepts.” Your summary of “what even Finkelstein admits” is strangely phrased and substantively distorted, and it doesn’t support your claim that NAS is “a description of a fairly obvious form of bigotry.”
You’ve lost me on point (b). Which NAS-skeptics believe the concept cannot be captured in an image? This boggles the mind. We’ve just finished a lengthy mediation in which I and other NAS-skeptics suggested various images as appropriate, and explained in detail why; in fact the mediation concluded with the selection of one such image for the lead. You described this conclusion as a complete victory for the anti-NAS faction, yet here you are now saying the anti-NAS faction categorically believes no image is appropriate. This rudderless rhetoric is leaving me seasick, and begins to seem like pure spin and strawman stuffing. At any rate if it’s us you’re speaking for, you need only review the discussions to see that you’re mistaken. If it’s someone else you’re speaking for, I’d be very curious to know who that someone is.--G-Dett (talk) 17:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Regarding point a), MANIFESTO is indeed a significant refutation of your claim. Afshin Ellian also feels that "Islamophobia" is invoked to stifle criticism of Islam. He states "No one is trying stigmatise or lump together all the adherents of a particular faith. To repeat that constantly that is a malicious allegation."[4]Keenan Malik describes it as a "myth".[5] As for Finkelstein (and other critics), they divide incidents of New antisemitism into essentially two groups. The first they dismiss as simply "legitimate criticism". The second, examples which even they cannot deny are antisemitic, they insist are merely the regular old antisemitism, and excuse by saying "Israel's actions/existence inevitably leads to this antisemitism". So, when the zombietime image appears, those who dispute the existence of New antisemitism, but cannot deny that the zombietime image is antisemitic, insist that it's merely the old fashioned kind of antisemitism. As for point b), the NAS deniers didn't agree that images actually demonstrated New antisemitism; rather they accepted that certain images had been described as New antisemitism. That of course, is quite a different thing. And so, we are left in the same paradoxical state; those who deny the existence of NAS, and do not believe any image could actually depict it (even if images have been described as examples of it), nevertheless feel qualified somehow to decide which images actually depict New antisemitism. Jayjg (talk)01:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Jay, I'd like to address your reading of the "MANIFESTO" and the two essays as sources, but before I do, I want to make absolutely sure that I understand your argument, and cannot be accused of building a straw man.
G-Dett writes that Islamophobia "is just the more-or-less-accepted baseline term for the phenomenon of bigotry against Arabs and Muslims," and that although some authors criticize the specific term "Islamophobia," nobody disputes that bigotry against Arabs and Muslims does exist. You write back that the "MANIFESTO," plus two essays you've linked, refute that claim.
So, to be clear: your claim is that the "MANIFESTO," plus the Ellian and Malik essays, argue not merely that the term "Islamophobia" is an inappropriate label, but that bigotry against Arabs and Muslims does not exist?
I'm trying to be extra-special-clear here, because frankly, this would be such a preposterous claim that I'm sure I've misunderstood your line of reasoning somewhere. Could you explain where I've gone wrong, and clarify exactly what it is about G-Dett's point (a) that you argue is refuted by these three sources? Thanks, <eleland/talkedits> 02:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Jay, I look forward to your response to Eleland. Regarding point (b) there’s still no paradox, just words and their meanings moving around like peas and shells. In that last move the pea moved from–
“NAS-deniers” believe "it cannot be captured in an image, because the concept is meaningless"
to –
“NAS-deniers” believe no image can “actually demonstrate New antisemitism"
– thereby shifting the criterion from the appropriate one of conceptual illustration to the inappropriate one of evidentiary proof. Please review WP:NPOV.
Here for your perusal is one of the countless times in this enervating saga where I – one of those editors you so delicately term an "NAS-denier" – describe exactly how a particular image can capture the gist of a theory I don't subscribe to:
All sourcing issues aside, I think it's also a far better visual lead-in to the controversy at the heart of 'new antisemitism.' NAS is not controversial for maintaining that fringey images of Jews looking like demons and devils and rubbing their hands in voracious glee while the earth is consumed by the fire of war are antisemitic. It is controversial for maintaining that prominent left-wing criticism of Israel has become infected with forms of antisemitism we thought had vanished from public life, but in fact were only lying dormant.
When an image that flirts with the line between legitimate criticism and paranoid demagoguery makes it on to the cover of the New Statesman, this better captures the controversial dynamics of NAS than does a crazy image of Jewish devils torching the globe – an image whose economy of distribution (before Wikipedia got its hands on it) consisted of having been designed by one crank, held aloft by a second, and photographed by a third.--G-Dett (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
When the topic of an article is a disputed theory, Wikipedians who “deny” the theory are just as capable of evaluating the illustrative aptness of an image as Wikipedians who ardently promote the theory.
If and when someone tells you that as an “Israeli apartheid denier” you’re not qualified to comment on what images appropriately depict that subject, I trust you’ll quickly come round to the wisdom of the preceding paragraph.--G-Dett (talk) 13:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
G-Dett, regarding your first point, let me give you an analogy; suppose, for example, one were a doctor who insisted that there was no such thing as Chronic fatigue syndrome. Would that person be a good candidate for providing examples of patients who had the syndrome? Regarding your paragraph describing how you can "capture the gist of a theory [you] don't subscribe to" you seem to have forgotten that we're not talking about a visual lead-in for the article. As for Eleland, he's already found a like-minded audience with which to discuss this in another forum; I'll leave him to that discussion. Jayjg (talk)02:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Chronic fatigue syndrome is a bad example, because its existence is established by such overwhelming consensus that the same NPOV concerns don't apply. The Israeli apartheid analogy is a good example because Israeli apartheid, like new antisemitism, is a controversial concept. Do you believe you as an editor are incapable of contributing meaningfully to a discussion of appropriate images for that article? That seems to be what you're saying.
I haven't forgotten we're no longer talking about a lead-in. The post I quoted above was one of many I wrote extensively making the case for the appropriateness of the New Statesman image, and it was the only one that referred to what is specifically suited to a lead-in. You'd know all this if you'd actually read the discussions that led to the time-consuming mediation of which you were a party. At any rate, I fail to see what bearing, if any, this distinction between lead images and non-lead images has on the position of yours that we're actually debating here – which, to remind you, is your position "(b)" above. Unless you're amending that position so that it goes, people who deny the very existence of New antisemitism cannot judge whether an image is an example of it, unless it's an image proposed for the lead. Is that where you are now with your claim? Curiouser and curiouser.
Sorry if I'm slow, but I don't understand the reference to Eleland. On which page can I find a good discussion of the question he put to you?--G-Dett (talk) 04:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Relata Refero, please restrict your comments to this article, rather than falsely describing the views of other editors. If any comments are deleted from this Talk: page, those will be the first to go. Thanks. Jayjg (talk)00:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Ooo. Feisty. I thought you were strong on the subject of discussing user behaviour on usertalkpages? Perhaps you should have put the last sentence on my talkpage, if you were interested in consistency. Still. I'd be interested to know whether I "falsely" described the absurd little argument about those who do not believe in a phenomenon being unable to illustrate it, or the reason why you now feel you cannot make a reasonable reply to Eleland's reasonable question. --Relata refero (disp.)05:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
It is a little extreme, but to be fair he seems now to have moderated his position. Atheists may author introductions to works of art history.
Jay, here was the question: Although some authors criticize the specific term "Islamophobia," nobody disputes that bigotry against Arabs and Muslims does exist. You write back that the "MANIFESTO," plus two essays you've linked, refute that claim. So, to be clear: your claim is that the "MANIFESTO," plus the Ellian and Malik essays, argue not merely that the term "Islamophobia" is an inappropriate label, but that bigotry against Arabs and Muslims does not exist? I am not a contributor to Wikipedia Review, and the thread you refer to – which I wasn't previously aware of – doesn't touch on that question. So can I have an answer?--G-Dett (talk) 12:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
To be clear, a proxy is a person who acts on behalf of another person, not a person who has the same question as another person. It's a little strange to be told that you won't answer my question because of something that Eleland, a poster to a site I don't read, said there about you, a frequenter of said site. You are of course free to not respond to any question for whatever reason, even personal pique, but people trying to follow this discussion will draw conclusions from that.--G-Dett (talk) 02:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Let's see, I've said I won't be responding to Eleland's questions, so now you're asking them instead of him, quoting him exactly, but you're claiming not to be acting as his proxy. You are of course free to make whatever claims you like regarding your actions, regardless of how seemingly absurd, but people trying to follow this discussion will draw conclusions from that. Jayjg (talk)02:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Jay, this is a group discussion. For private reasons having nothing to do with Wikipedia policy you have decided you're not talking to Eleland. That is your right, however childish it may seem; but it crosses over into disruptive POINT-making when you refuse, in a group discussion, to address legitimate questions if they were first voiced by Eleland. It is both false and insulting to say I'm acting as his proxy; I am confident that literate editors will not share your conceptual difficulties.--G-Dett (talk) 05:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
You’re quite right: Islamophobia is an extraordinarily simple, non-controversial term with essentially only one meaning. Thus, we can say with confidence that the picture at right denotes:
an outlook or world-view involving an unfounded dread and dislike of Muslims, which results in practices of exclusion and discrimination
Russian actions towards Afghans in the 80’s
A French painter in the 20’s
denying the existence of a moderate Muslim majority
regarding Islam as a problem for the world
treating conflicts involving Muslims as necessarily their own fault
insisting that Muslims make changes to their religion
inciting war against Islam as a whole
anti-Muslim racism
anti-Asian and anti-Arab racism
seeing Islam as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change.
Seeing Islam as separate and "other." It does not have values in common with other cultures, is not affected by them and does not influence them.
Seeing Islam as inferior to the West. It is seen as barbaric, irrational, primitive, and sexist.
I’m not sure I understand where you’re going with this. The Oxford English Dictionary defines Islamophobia simply; following that simple definition, I wrote above that it “names a recognized form of bigotry, which people of good faith may agree or disagree is operative in this or that situation." You have listed as many of those situations as you can think of, for what reason I'm not sure. Is the idea that if you can list lots and lots of situations ("a French painter in the 1920s," "Russian actions toward Afghans in the '80s"), the gathering verbal clutter will indicate that the thing we’re talking about is not a phenomenon but rather a theoretical concept?
If so, you’re just confusing alleged examples of a thing with defining features of a thing. You seem to think that a critical mass of circumambient controversy renders a thing merely "theoretical." I assure you it does not. A fierce debate about whether electromagnetic influence has played a role in air disasters does not make electromagnetism itself merely theoretical. Disputed speculations about whether John Donne had bipolar disorder, or whether bipolar disorder can enhance creativity, to not make bipolar disorder itself merely theoretical. What the vast literature on racism documents, discusses, and debates in terms of attitudes toward and treatment of black people would make for a list 500 times as long as yours above; but this doesn’t make “racism” a complicated theoretical concept about views of black people as more sexual, having “natural rhythm,” never making good quarterbacks or CEOs, approaching adversity soulfully (but at the same time complaining too much about The Man), and loving to eat watermelon. Is it unsettling when white guys adopt an exaggeratedly casual (though well-meaning) manner with black acquaintances? Is affirmative action appropriate redress for the legacy of slavery and segregation? Is American economic life systemically rigged against black people? Have the canons of our national art and culture systematically marginalized the enormous contributions of black Americans? Tough questions, each linked to larger controversies, but they don’t make racism itself a complicated theoretical concept. No, it’s still just a “recognized form of bigotry, which people of good faith may agree or disagree is operative in this or that situation."
Bottom line: acknowledgment that Islamophobia exists does not require you to believe that talk of a “clash of civilizations” is Islamophobic, or that deploring the subjugation of women in Islamist regimes is Islamophobic, or that the war on terror is Islamophobic, or that Russian actions against Afghans in the 80s were Islamophobic, or anything in particular about whatever painter you’re talking about. All it requires is that you believe that bigotry against Arabs and Muslims (qua Arabs and Muslims) exists in some form somewhere, and/or has existed in other historical periods. NAS is by contrast historically specific and theoretical, and it does require you to believe that Islamist opposition to the existence of the Israeli state, Western liberal intelligentsia’s blaming of Israeli policies for the I/P conflict, vandalism by immigrant youths in Europe, and so on, are inextricably linked, and constitute symptoms of the same virus, a new mutation of an old virus, resurgent after a period of relative dormancy. Those linked things are constitutive parts, not incidental examples; take the links away and you’ll have plenty of antisemitic bigotry left over, but no “New antisemitism.” The links are the very sine qua non of the theory, and it is precisely their validity that is heavily contested.
At any rate Ironduke, perhaps the easiest way for you to understand that NAS is a theoretical concept and Islamophobia isn't would be for you simply to read the definitions:
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. (Wikipedia)
versus –
Islamophobia, noun. Hatred or fear of Islam, esp. as a political force; hostility or prejudice towards Muslims. (Oxford English Dictionary)
Nice discussion, if completely irrelevant.Jay, may I point out that you have several times suggested that an article talkpage be used only to discuss the article in question? G-Dett, IronDuke, please aid Jay by returning to the topic of this article. --Relata refero (disp.)17:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Interesting comment, if completely irrelevant. RR, we are discussing this article, and in particular discussing what standards are required for image inclusion on this and similar articles. So far the zombietime image more than meets Wikipedia's requirements. Please return to the topic of this article. Jayjg (talk)00:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Please review the post which starts this thread. "Is the image on the right, found in the Anti-Arabism article, a reliably sourced image showing Anti-Arabism? Please explain why or why not." That is not about this article, nor is it about policy, nor is this a policy page, on which "wikipedia's requirements" are hammered out. I suggest you and the author of that post get together and work out which article you wish to discuss. --Relata refero (disp.)04:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Please review the fruitful discussion in this section, regarding appropriateness of images, standards for images, etc., in this article, and please avoid further unhelpful comments. Thanks. Jayjg (talk)01:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
There has been none. Which is why I suggest we close this thread. That is a helpful comment, in that it keeps things on-track. An unhelpful comment derails or diverts relevant discussion. --Relata refero (disp.)03:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Fruitful or no, with all questions answered and arguments rebutted, this would indeed be a good time to close the thread. I have three closing observations:
This proposal to develop special criteria for images in "articles about discrimination" seems wrong-headed to begin with. There are no special RS- or image-issues particular to them as a class. It may make sense however to consider drafting criteria for image inclusion in articles about controversial theories.
Relata is absolutely right that general policy proposals like this should be floated on policy talk pages, not here.
We should try in general to avoid major topic digressions like those above. It can be rhetorically appropriate to bring in other articles for comparison, either as good example to illustrate how to do things right, or as a bad example to point up a double standard at work in the discussion. The dismaying thing about these digressions into images from Anti-Arabism and Islamophobia is that they seem to have been introduced neither as helpful good examples nor as illuminating bad ones, but rather simply as rhetorical opportunities to keep the dispute about Zombietime alive.--G-Dett (talk) 00:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Balance
The article as it stands now gives vastly disporportionate space to critics of the concept, a proportion unusual in political concept articles on Wikipedia in general. Contrast it with Anti-Arabism, where almost no space is devoted to the many reputable academics and intellectuals who argue that antiArabism is a plitical construct designed to counter and minimalize anti-Semtitism. The disparity between the two articles is striking.
Moreover, some of the categories included are very problematic. Take f, for example, the section headed Opposition to Israel not necessarily antisemitism. Why is there no section headed Opposition to Israel is necessarily antisemitic? Such a section would have as much academic support as the one that exists.
Why, oh why is an article on the New Antisemitism largely devoted to denying that the phenomenon exists. When, other, comparable articles are not so slanted?Elan26 (talk) 19:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Elan26
We must be looking at different articles, because the version I see is weighted more than 2-to-1 toward the idea that there is such a thing as "new antisemitism". Scrolling down the article after the table of contents, I counted 10 screens about proponents of the concept and only 4-1/4 about skeptics and opponents.
Why do you think she is talking about a different article? To me it looks like Elan26 is describing this very article. The problem I see is that this article has been the victim of pretty straight forward POV pushing, with a lot of counter arguments against the existence of the new antisemitism, to the point where a reader would come away with little idea of what the article is intended to describe to describe. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps the problem is that there are a lot of arguments against the existence of a "new" antisemitism, in published reliable sources. The problem with this article is not that those arguments are represented here, but that a lot of this article is bloated with WP:SYN and WP:OR violations, trying to establish an argument for a "new antisemitism" above and beyond the actual debate that exists in reliable sources. csloat (talk) 16:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the article is a bit impenetrable, but I think the main problem is that it's severely bloated, slightly pretentious, and has a badly designed series of section breaks.
One of the main problems, and I don't think it's been raised or addressed yet, is that "New antisemitism" was largely a journalistic meme that took off after 2001, peaked a couple of years later, and has more or less dropped off the map by 2008. Yet this article presents it as a major field of academic inquiry. It does this by foregrounding and magnifying the very few statements made about the subject by academic luminaries like Bernard Lewis and Yehuda Bauer. All of the Lewis material is sourced to a nine-page journal paper he published in 2004, which in turn was based on a speech he gave earlier at Brandeis. The Bauer material all comes from an unpublished, somewhat informal departmental talk he gave at UC Santa Cruz in 2003. We present as grandiose competing historical narratives – a "third wave" of antisemitism in all of history (per Lewis) vs. a "fourth wave since 1945" (per Bauer) – what are in fact casual chronological schemes put forth in the context of topical remarks about contemporary antisemitism.
I agree that the article is bloated. I have suggested, below, that the entire "Political directions" section to the article be deleted because it is a quote farm, and serves no purpose but POV pushing. Removing that would be a good start at slimming the article down. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
It's clear then that the Bauer stuff should be removed completely, as well as a lot of the original research peppered throughout the article. If we can focus this article on the actual discussion that exists in published sources it would go a long way to eliminating a lot of the cruft. csloat (talk) 16:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree that material that isn't talking about "new antisemitism" should be removed. That would trim down the article dramatically. This really is one big WP:OR problem. csloat (talk) 16:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Fixed. I left the stuff that actually discussed "new antisemitism." I think there's a lot more in the article that should go but it's a good start. csloat (talk) 16:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay...but why did you save the paragraphs on Tariq Ali? Is far I can see he is not an expert in the subject of the article, and he is the most obviously politically biased. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I have moved this material here to the talk page for discussion:
Tariq Ali argues that the "supposed new 'anti-Semitism'" is a "cynical ploy."[1]
British writer Tariq Ali 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, and Israel, far from being a victim, is "the strongest state in the region. It possesses real, not imaginary, weapons of mass destruction. It possesses more tanks and bomber jets and pilots than the rest of the Arab world put together. To say that the Zionist state is threatened by any Arab country is pure demagogy." 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.[1]
He has as much qualifications as anyone else on the page. He's an expert on middle east affairs. I'm restoring it. If you start deleting everything on the page someone thinks is biased there will be nothing left. Do not delete it again. csloat (talk) 18:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
He's a middle east historian and his work is well respected. You are deleting well sourced content. See WP:RS to see what counts as a reliable source; his work clearly meets it. Your edits are disruptive and practically vandalism. csloat (talk) 19:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Malcom, you are probably right, at least formally. But the Tariq Ali sentence depicts quite clearly the present trend visible here in Europe, where the general extreme-left translation of Antisemitism is being depicted as a more aseptic Anti-Zionism. This is functional to an Anti-Israelism (please concede) which is, in turn, functional to the policy of Pan-Arabism. My of course questionable opinion is that Anti-Zionism, as well as Antisemitism, in the present situation are just a tool against the State of Israel. And in this sense, the citation fits perfectly.--UbUb (talk) 18:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Uh? I am new in en.wiki. But I just left it.wiki just because of repeated edita like the one of the Commodore.--UbUb (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes,UbUb, that trend in Europe (and elsewhere) is exactly the subject of this article. The simple fact is that, if you look at Tariq Ali's own article, you will see that he has published in highly partisan political journals, and not in peer reviewed academic journals; and so he is not qualified as a source in an article about an academic subject....which is what this article is. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Don't be daft. 90% of the sources on here are highly partisan, if not more. Why are you focusing on this one? Just because you don't like him? There is nothing in WP:RS that requires published authors to be "nonpartisan" or to be peer reviewed in academic journals. Your edits are disruptive. csloat (talk) 19:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd have supposed that discussion on "The New Antisemitism" was one of the most political and least academic topics around. I have no truck with Tariq Ali and his politics (or didn't when I last checked out what he was publishing, anyway). But there's no question his views on this are notable, and almost certainly far more significant than one-track attack-dogs for Israel such as Daniel Pipes - one is bound to suppose the latter is using the concept as a smear on ideological rivals. When we're writing an article on "New Neo-Nazis for Israel", then the reverse will apply, Daniel Pipes's analysis of what's really going on will be highly relevant, and wild accusations of neo-Nazism from the likes of Tariq Ali will be rightly consigned to the fringe. PRtalk20:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that for this article it is important to use sources that are academically respected. Looking at Tariq Ali's own article, what I see is that he has published in some very highly partisan journals, but no mention of any academically respected publication. If there are other, non-academic sources used in the article, they should be removed. (As for Daniel Pipes, he has the record academic publication that Tariq Ali does not.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
First of all, "academic respect" is not a criterion of WP:RS. Second, Tariq Ali is quite well respected anyway; the fact that you personally don't respect him is not relevant to what Wikipedia publishes. Third, your opinion even seems quite worthless on this matter, since you don't seem to have even read him. Fourth, he is a well known commentator in such journals as the London Review of Books -- hardly a "highly partisan" journal. Fifth, there is no requirement in WP:RS that well respected authors who happen to publish in "highly partisan" journals may not be used. Sixth, Ali's Oxford education and his editorial direction of Verso and of the peer-reviewed academic journal New Left Review puts Pipes' pseudo-qualifications to shame. Seventh,this is not a contest between Pipes and Ali; this is about you removing well sourced material that you happen to disagree with and using phony whines about Ali's qualifications as a cover for your actions. Eighth, he is a highly visible commentator on these matters who has published several well regarded books. Are we through here? Please indicate your willingness to restore this material to the page so we can get it unblocked and move on. Thank you. csloat (talk) 22:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I want to say a few words about how the current situation developed. I had suggested above [7]that I thought that the section of the article called "Political directions" was doing nothing but POV pushing. But I did not change the article because I hoped that discussion leading to consensus (one way or another) would avoid another edit war. Unfortunately, user csloat deleted the section before any significant discussion occurred, but save the most problematic paragraph from that section (the paragraph sourcing Tariq Ali), and moved it to another section of the article. I think that acting in such a way, while editing an article that has generated so much controversy, is unacceptable. After such action, for csloat then to call me disruptive is not convincing. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I deleted material which had nothing to do with "new antisemitism" based on your suggestion. If you had put back the material and stated that there should be more discussion for some reason there would not likely have been an edit war. Instead, you took the opportunity to remove material that had not been disputed and which was obviously relevant and important and well sourced. Even worse, your explanation above is that you were disrupting wikipedia to make a point -- you removed the Ali material to "get back at me" for removing the other material (which, I'll remind you, you suggested we remove in the first place!) I see your actions as completely disruptive and I'm asking you to please stop so we can get back to improving this page. Thanks. csloat (talk) 22:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
NPOV requires that we provide different views neutrally, not that we provide only neutral views. Ali is a notable source and should be included. But we would serve our readers well if we provide contextual information about this view, as we should for other views. Slrubenstein | Talk22:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Ali is rather notable. He has about twenty books out. He's an secular leftist, writing from a "pox on both your houses" position. He's down on both militant Islam and militant Zionism. He blames the US for backing religious states, from the Taliban (which the US backed at one point), the Saudis, and the Israelis, and points out how this has backfired. [8]. He doesn't line up with anybody's party line, and keeps harping on things many people don't want to hear or would rather forget. --John Nagle (talk) 01:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I put a reply to Slrubenstein on his talk page, but since John Nagle raises similar issues, I am copying that reply here:
I understand your point on the New antisemitism talk page about Tariq Ali, but what I was trying to explain is something different.
The topic itself is the creation of a number of academics, and there is opposition from academics also. The views of both sides are represented in the article, all from writers with good academic credentials, and with history of publishing in academic journals. Wikipedia guidelines encourages the use of such sources when they are available [9]
Since the topic itself easily generates over heated reactions, and since there are very good academic sources, the use of Tariq Ali (a non-academic source) seems unnecessary, and incendiary. Although he is obviously notable, intelligent, and highly articulate; the paragraph sourcing him seems, to me, less a rebuttal of New Antisemitism theory, and more what proponents of the theory would regard a an example of it. If you read what is sourced to him you will see that very little of it is really a rebuttal of New Antisemitism.
Just an explanation of my thinking. Of course, if there is no support for my view, then it will get no traction. But I really think the article would be better without the Tariq Ali paragraph, and still fully represent both sides. I am not trying to remove criticism of New Antisemitism from the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I want to point out that my objection is not to Tariq Ali, but to the paragraph sourced to him which is incendiary, and consists mostly of accusations. Perhaps that paragraph does not represent him fairly. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whether it fairly represents him; what matters is that he is a notable and well known source with a notable opinion on the topic that is published in a reliable source. Your opinion that it is "incendiary" is really beside the point. See my points 1-8 above. csloat (talk) 21:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Of course Tariq Ali is notable. But being notable does not establish that he has expert knowledge in this area of knowledge. Why would a quote from him be any more helpful for understanding New antisemitism than, for instance, a quote from Oriana Fallaci [10]?
Ali's opinions on this topic are indeed notable. Fallaci's may be as well (though the quote you link to does not discuss "new" antisemitism; the rest of the article, however, does). I am not the one suggesting we compare the two. Again, where in WP:RS does it state that only "experts" in a particular area of knowledge (defined only by wikipedia editors, presumably?) are acceptable? csloat (talk) 19:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I think we need to take a step back and acknowledge that – given the inextricability of the discourse of "new antisemitism" from the dispute over Israel/Palestine – pretty much all sources on the subject are going to be partisan, all of us are going to have our preferences among them, and our preferences are not going to be absolutely reducible to scholarly achievement.
The main problem with this article is still the one I noted above: a meme that had momentum for a time among journalists and popular writers is being repackaged as a major scholarly debate. This distortion has been accomplished by stitching together the few comments by major scholars touching on the controversy, and putting these under a giant magnifying glass. Not big enough to burn them like ants but big enough to seriously exaggerate their scholarly input into what was largely a sort of op-ed-page grudgematch – a match that started in 2001 and was already winding down by 2005. The Bauer piece is a classic example of this: it's not even a scholarly paper per se, but rather an unpublished and rather informal set of remarks he gave at a departmental conference at UC Santa Cruz, and he never even uses the term "new antisemitism." Why doesn't he use it? Probably because, as a serious scholar, he recognized the topical faddishness of the meme and chose instead to discuss some of the issues without descending completely into the op-ed-page grudgematch of the week.
This distortion resulted from an entirely understandable mistake in the crafting of this article, because one naturally looks for the best possible sources. And yes, Bauer and Lewis and Krug are more serious writers than Foxman and Chesler. But the fact is that the theoretical formulation and dissemination of the concept of "new antisemitism" is much more the work of writers like Foxman and Chesler, and a dozen or so other pundits and journalists, than of the scholars who have touched on the controversy here and there in largely informal remarks. (Finkelstein and a few others have addressed it in longer works written within the heart of their disciplinary expertise, but they are the exception.) This is a very detailed and informative article, but it does mislead the reader in this respect.--G-Dett (talk) 01:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
G-Dett, I don't think this article is "detailed", nor is it "informative". The description of what New antisemitism actually means (as a subject, not as a political position) is pretty much limited to two short paragraphs in the intro. Then there follows a discussion of its history -- which you say is wrong. Then comes a series of arguments, for and against, by several scholars, and a political activist, that serve to confuse the subject instead of clarifying it...and which is a quote farm to boot.
It seems to me that editing has gotten so involved in argument over the correctness of the theory that no space in the article has been given to just explaining its claims. Something needs to be done to make clear what this article is about. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
This article is pretty bad, it's true, but it's not for lack of explaining what "new antisemitism" is or might be. I think the first four paragraphs are reasonable on this although they could go into more depth. The problem is, I think, that it is a disputed concept and it is one, as G-dett points out, without any real basis in academic research. It's a euphemism that comes out of op-ed pages that is used to conflate racism with political activism. This is fine -- there are many such neologisms all over Wikipedia -- but it is then distorted further by Wikipedia editors who insist on treating it as a measurable and observable entity discussed in scholarship rather than as the political football it is. Applying such criteria as "expertise in this field" to writers such as Ali (who is anyway a historian of the Middle East with plenty of expertise in this general area, as has been shown above) is a good example of that. csloat (talk) 19:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
The second paragraph of the intro says:
The concept generally posits that much of what purports to be criticism of Israel by various individuals and world bodies is in fact tantamount to demonization, and that together with an international resurgence of attacks on Jews and Jewish symbols and an increased acceptance of antisemitic beliefs in public discourse, such demonization represents an evolution in the appearance of antisemitic beliefs.
If you don't think that's deep enough, add more depth as I suggested above. I don't see how deleting an entirely separate paragraph of legitimate criticism of the concept from a well established authority is going to improve that particular paragraph.csloat (talk) 01:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
That is an interesting opinion but if you don't have a reliable source making the claim we cannot use it. I've explained patiently (points 1-8 above) why Ali is a notable source to be included in the article. Do you accept that or are you going to keep edit warring when the article in unprotected? csloat (talk) 13:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I think I have made it clear that I oppose the paragraph sourced to Tariq Ali. Since Earl Raab, Steven Zipperstein, and (particularly) Norman Finkelstein, make the same criticism of New Antisemitism as Tariq Ali; the only thing that his paragraph adds to the article is the soap boxing [11] accusations against the state of Israel, which have no place in the article at all. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes you've made it clear but I've given you eight reasons that you are wrong, and you haven't answered a single one of them. This isn't about listing accusations about Israel, it's about notable criticism of a "theoretical" concept. You said above that "if there is no support for my view, then it will get no traction." There appears to be no support for your view. Will you continue to be obstinate about this when the page is unblocked or will you go with the consensus? csloat (talk) 14:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I think it is clear that we are far from agreement. Rather than continuing to make accusations against me, which is not helpful, are you willing to find a compromise? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify further my objection to the paragraph sourced to Tariq Ali, I have broken the paragraph down into its seven sentences. If it is read in this way, it is easy to see that every sentence -- except one -- seems to be mostly accusations against Israel and/or Zionism. The paragraph does not actually discuss New Antisimitism at all, but uses New Antisemitism is as a launch pad for SOAP attacks on Israel and Zionism.
The only exception is the last sentence, which would be okay to keep in the article.
British writer Tariq Ali 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, and Israel, far from being a victim, is "the strongest state in the region.
It possesses real, not imaginary, weapons of mass destruction.
It possesses more tanks and bomber jets and pilots than the rest of the Arab world put together.
To say that the Zionist state is threatened by any Arab country is pure demagogy."
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.
If you can write a paragraph that actually discusses Tariq Ali's views on New Antisemitism, I would not oppose it being in the article. The paragraph in dispute seems just a soap boxing attack on Israel and Zionism, and has no place in this article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Don't be ridiculous; it has nothing to do with soapboxing; it clearly states Ali's opinion on the matter. I'm not opposed to removing some of the redundant stuff and shortening the paragraph -- by all means -- but stop pretending that Wikipedia is endorsing Ali's view by reporting it. By your logic, we should eliminate a lot of the quotes on the other side, since they are attacks on people the authors consider "new antisemites." Since a lot of what this article is about is how criticism of Zionism gets turned into a bogus accusation of racism, such quotes are of course directly relevant to the article. You are suggesting we remove such quotes on one side of the debate and not the other -- that, my friend, is the very definition of POV-pushing. csloat (talk) 19:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) I am not sure why we are only discussing Tariq Ali's academic qualifications; there are at least half a dozen political activist sources quoted in this article, most with fewer credentials than Ali. Forster and Epstein are not authorities on the subject, nor is Chip Berlet. Irwin Cotler is quoted as a law professor; some might consider it more relevant that he's a lifelong political activist who controversially swerved Canadian policy towards Israel during his tenure as Justice Minister, that Alan Dershowitz calls Cotler "my mirror image," that Cotler likened the World Conference against Racism, for its criticism of Israel, to 9/11, Kristallnacht, and Mein Kampf all in the same sentence, etc.[12]
...but all that said, fine, we can use Cotler - he represents a notable point of view, regardless of my own personal view of it, and regardless of his lack of academic qualifications in the area. But we can't keep using Cotler et al while cutting out Ali; that's just blatant partisanship. This is a politicized issue, which means that to cover it adequately, we'll need to include politically controversial views of politically activist sources. I can accept the view which says that Wikipedia should exclude such sources, even if it means we won't have comprehensive coverage of these type of "bleeding edge" political controversies. I certainly can't accept the idea that only critical political sources should go, while the supportive ones should stay. <eleland/talkedits> 20:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Eleland that this laser-like focus on Ali is strange and unexplained. But I'd like to reiterate my position that I think all of these sources – from partisan academics like Ali all the way down to the obscure pundit & wikipedian Chip Berlet – are fine sources for this article, because it is after all about a faddish journalistic meme now well past its sell-by date. What is dubious is our extensive use of – and exaggeration of the scope and significance of – passing comments on the meme by major academics. There are undoubtedly many academics who have commented on Britney Spears (in the context of modern celebrity, cultural representations of women, and so on), and some of these may merit a mention, but we don't build the Britney Spears article around inflated citations from talks given by ivy league professors at last year's MLA conference; main sources rather would be things like Rolling Stone, MTV, who knows perhaps even Berlet's alma mater High Times.--G-Dett (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Ha! Finally I disagree with G-Dett on something. I personally would be extremely happy if this and similar articles were exclusively sourced to passing comments in articles by academics; that would be a very accurate representation of the encyclopedicity of such passing memes. --Relata refero (disp.)06:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
G-Dett, I see you have gotten bored with making personal attacks on other editors, and have branched out to personal attacks on sources as well. 6SJ7 (talk) 02:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Can a fictional character be a reliable source? I would like to quote my man Henry:
Life, friends, is boring. We must not say so. After all, the sky flashes, the great sea yearns, we ourselves flash and yearn, and moreover my mother told me as a boy (repeatingly) "Ever to confess you're bored means you have no
Inner Resources." I conclude now I have no inner resources, because I am heavy bored. Peoples bore me, literature bores me, especially great literature, Henry bores me, with his plights & gripes as bad as Achilles,
who loves people and valiant art, which bores me. And the tranquil hills, & gin, look like a drag and somehow a dog has taken itself & its tail considerably away into the mountains or sea or sky, leaving behind: me, wag.
I am in favor of removing all material in the article based on sources that do not have academic qualification on this subject, and regardless of which side of the issue they are on. I said that above, but it may have gotten lost in the discussion of Tariq Ali. The entire article is blotted, and is a quote farm. But I would like to have deletions discussed and agreed upon....not preemptively deleted as csloat did with the "Political directions" section. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me? I only deleted material that did not mention new antisemitism at all. And I only did so after you pointed out that the material should be deleted. Was there any of it you wanted to keep? Please indicate what and explain your reasoning why; we can certainly discuss that. You are the one who preemptively deleted material without discussion, and you then edit warred to keep deleting it in spite of the fact that the consensus supports keeping the material in. If you just deleted Ali because you were mad that I deleted the other stuff, you are disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and you should apologize and stop doing that. But if you really think Ali should be deleted from the article, you should answer the 8 arguments I made in favor of keeping him in, as well as the other cogent arguments made by several other editors here, and try to work toward convincing us and establishing a new consensus. G-Dett in particular has made a very persuasive case that your insistence on "academic qualifications on this subject" is quite backwards; this is simply not a subject with any real academic standing. You have yet to address any of these arguments. csloat (talk) 21:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
csloat,you deleted an entire section before any discussion had occurred, which is never a good idea...and particularly not in an article, such as this one, with a history of disputes.
You also have included unfounded accusations directed at me in virtually every edit you have made in recent days (quite a few edits), and you also continue your unfounded negative suppositions about my intentions. That is incivil WP:CIVIL, and you are failing to assume good faith WP:FAITH. I would appreciate it if you would stop your incivility. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
You are again making false statements Malcolm. I did not delete an entire section before any discussion had occurred; I deleted part of a section after you yourself had started a discussion and advocated deletion! And to this date there has been not a single specific complaint with any of my deletions -- not even from you, and I have invited you to explain any objections you have to any material I deleted. You have chosen not to. The only thing anyone has complained about has been your deletion of Ali (and to be clear, the consensus seems unanimous against your deletion of that material). I have not speculated on your intentions; I have just described your actions. There is nothing uncivil about that. Since you have dropped your objections to the material at hand -- or, at least, you have refused to respond to the arguments against deletion of the material -- can we now assume that when the material goes back in the article you will not start another edit war? Thanks. csloat (talk) 04:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Nothing has changed. There is no consensus. I have, in fact, explained my views on the paragraph sourced to Tariq Ali many times. I am happy that you finally have written an edit that is free of incivility; but, aside from that, there is nothing constructive in it. In fact you are saying that you think you can force your preferred version into the article, and you seem unwilling to compromise. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
We'd need to remove a lot more than that. If we remove everything by non-academics, 90% of this article would go (and, as G-Dett points out, this is not an academic topic. It is not the product of research. It is a partisan media football. And, frankly, Ali might have to stay in, depending how we define "academics" -- he's a historian who has published dozens of books on numerous topics, and is an editor for a peer-reviewed academic journal. So it is not even clear that he should be removed according to your arbitrary academic standard. But in any case, your standard is not supported by any Wikipedia policy. csloat (talk) 16:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I explained the logical implications of your suggestion. I am not unwilling to remove everything but academics from this page, but as I said it would remove 90% of what is here (and probably leave Ali in place). At that point the article would go to AfD since it is not an academically recognized or respected subject. Is that your goal? csloat (talk) 17:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
My 2 pfennigs, since Malcolm asked me to comment:
The notion of a "new anti-semitism" is largely the creation of politically "engaged" (as the French say) writers, so authors such as Arnold Forster and Benjamin Epstein are the type of source that would be used
The problem, of course, is that the concept is a political broadside directed against pretty broad target--basically almost the entirety of the left, some of the right, and pretty much anyone who has been critical of Israel and/or supportive of the Palestinians movement.
As we know, when there are political broadsides directed against broad targets, the targets (themselves generally hardcore engages tend to counterattack, often ad infinitum. Thus starts the cycle. Tariq Ali would fall into the category of an angaged responder to the broadside.
The article is full of such back and forth, and that may be just what the article should be. Any article whose subject matter is a highly charged, polemical broadside might have no other structure.
For godsakes, get rid of that completely gratuitous bit from Berlet. None of the sources that get cited (the same ones that seem to get cited all over WP) mention anything about "new antisemitism." I fully understand, of course, that no article about a contentious political topic is complete without commentary from Berlet sourced to either his organization's self published crusader mag or any number of righteous lefty pubs he is carried in, but at least let it be something where he actually uses the phrase that is the title of the article in question. Ding, there's the bell, back to our match!BoodlesthecatMeow?17:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that legitimate questions about the reliability and relevance of a source are one thing, and gratuitous swipes at a person (identified by his real name) are something else. Or to put it another way, I think the comments above about Mr. Berlet (of whom I know little) are beginning to veer into WP:BLP territory. 6SJ7 (talk) 18:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
6SJ7--a recent ruling by Silky Johnson, VP in charge of BLP issues confirmed that my cheap, pathetic, and indeed moronic attempts at satire and levity do not fall within the BLP guidelines. However, Wikipedia does contain a handy resource in which you can find a lifetime's worth of assorted gratutious swipes for your every need, collected here. I think they are all royalty free. BoodlesthecatMeow?18:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
As Ralph Kramden might say, you're a regular riot, Boodles. Well, he would say Alice, not Boodles, but you know what I mean. However, as they say in the military, this is above my pay grade; I will let one of the 1,000+ editors with "titles" decide whether your comedy routine has any policy implications. 6SJ7 (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
The problem with Tariq Ali would remain even without the change I have suggested. The Tariq Ali paragraph is not acceptable because it does not does not discuss New antisemitism; but it is, rather, just a verbal attack on Israel and Zionism. I explained this already (above) and am copying it again here:
Just to clarify further my objection to the paragraph sourced to Tariq Ali, I have broken the paragraph down into its seven sentences. If it is read in this way, it is easy to see that every sentence -- except one -- seems to be mostly accusations against Israel and/or Zionism. The paragraph does not actually discuss New Antisemitism at all, but uses New Antisemitism is as a launch pad for SOAP attacks on Israel and Zionism.
The only exception is the last sentence, which would be okay to keep in the article.
British writer Tariq Ali 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, and Israel, far from being a victim, is "the strongest state in the region.
It possesses real, not imaginary, weapons of mass destruction.
It possesses more tanks and bomber jets and pilots than the rest of the Arab world put together.
To say that the Zionist state is threatened by any Arab country is pure demagogy."
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.
If you can write a paragraph that actually discusses Tariq Ali's views on New Antisemitism, I would not oppose it being in the article. The paragraph in dispute seems just a soap boxing attack on Israel and Zionism, and has no place in this article.
Although Tariq Ali says the words "new antisemitism", but he does not discuss it (aside from the in last sentence) in the paragraph sourced to him. If he is going to have a paragraph in this article, you need to find something where he actually discusses what this article is about. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
He is clearly discussing new antisemitism in the paragraph. We can shorten the paragraph, but you cannot have this both ways. If "new antisemitism" is about criticism of Zionism, it is likely that critics of Zionism will have something to say about "new antisemitism." It may be your opinion that he really doesn't mean "new antisemitism" when he says "new antisemitism," but absent a reliable source confirming that opinion it really has no bearing on this article. csloat (talk) 19:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Not to mention that this "soap boxing attack on Israel and Zionism" is hard to find in the actual text that M. Schosha quotes; all he says is that Zionism exploits fear of antisemitism and that Israel has military superiority in the Middle East. Condemnation of "soap boxing" is particularly strange, given that we are addressing an explicitly political topic where everybody is on a soap box. Perhaps he misinterprets "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" to mean "Wikipedia does not report the opinions of notable sources if they personally irritate individual Wikipedians." <eleland/talkedits> 20:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I am saying that this paragraph does not do anything to explain the defects of New Antisemitism, which is what (apparently) it intends to do. It does include some accusations of Israel and Zionism. But what do we know after having read the paragraph than we did not know before reading it? Just that Tariq Ali does not like Israel or Zionism. So what? A reader of the article should get something from that paragraph to explain New Antisemitism, or some way to understand what New Antisemitism is, and instead the reader just gets Tariq Ali's attitude. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
What we get is a well respected historian's views on the notion of a "new antisemitism." We might disagree with those views, but they are notable and belong here. csloat (talk) 22:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Show me that he is notable for his knowledge of New Antisemitism. There are plenty of notable people in the world. Why is his view helpful to this article? What does he say in that paragraph that is not already said more completely by other writers who are in the article? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Please. Show me that any source on this page is "notable for his knowledge of New Antisemitism"?! It's not a concept with any real substance outside of media punditry, so there are no "experts in the field," because there is no such field! He is a noted historian and journalist of Middle East issues commenting on an issue that has been used to distort the debate about the middle east! How many times must this be pointed out to you? csloat (talk) 22:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Brian Klug is Senior Research Fellow & Tutor in Philosophy at Oxford and is associate editor of Patterns of Prejudice, a peer-reviewed journal examining social exclusion and stigmatization. Norman Finkelstein is a political scientist and author, whose primary fields of research are the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the politics of the Holocaust. Bernard Lewis is an historian who specializes in the history of Islam and the interaction between Islam and the West. Yehuda Bauer is a historian and scholar of the Holocaust. These are writers with an expert knowledge of the Jewish people, and of the history of antisemitism.
On the other hand Tariq Ali is a leftist political activist. As I have said, his views seem more an example of New Antisemitism than an analysis of it. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Tariq Ali is a historian and journalist who edits a peer-reviewed journal. He has written some two dozen books and his expertise on middle east affairs has been notable. You can pick and choose different things if you like but that doesn't change the reality. I've repeated this over and over again; I don't expect to continue. The consensus here is clear, please abide by it. csloat (talk) 04:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
The subject of this article is not middle east affairs. The subject is New Antisemitism, which some scholars claim exists, and others disagree. Tariq Ali's expertise in middle east affairs has no relevance in this article, and he has no special knowledge of antisemitism...new or otherwise. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
By the way, the "Political directions" section, deleted by csloat, was the only section of the article that would have accommodated the Tariq Ali paragraph. That section seems to have been intended to allow a place for political views on an otherwise non-political subject. No doubt that is the reason the Tariq Ali paragraph had been located in that section. I think it is just as well that section is gone, but without it there is no place in the article for a political activist such as Tariq Ali. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Some scholars claim Bigfoot exists too, but it has never been observed and researched in a scholarly manner. So there are no scholarly experts on "Bigfoot," just like there are none on "New antisemitism." Ali's expertise is as good as anyone else quoted here. Your second paragraph makes no sense. This is not an "otherwise non-political subject"; it is political through and through and it is basically a topic flayed by pundits in the media. Also I did not delete the section, I just deleted the extra heading, which was redundant ("The left and anti-Zionism" is still "political," and Ali's comments were on point there). As you know, this article is filled with quotes from "political activists," so why are you singling out Ali? Anyway, the consensus is pretty clear here; I suggest you move on. Thanks. csloat (talk) 16:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Csloat, following your line of thought is quite hard. You say T.A. has expertise in middle east affairs - granted, I personally do not often read his ideas, but I assume you are right. But what's the connection to new antisemitism? It happens in Russia, US, and for all I know maybe in the FarOer. So what's the use of his expertise in middle east affairs? less than zero. And, really, your comment on Bigfoot, to my eyes, is an insult to another contributor. Would you please refrain? Thanks.--UbUb (talk) 18:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
First, see my points 1-8 above which have yet to be addressed; I am building on those points so it might help with following my points. Second, the reason ME expertise is relevant here is that "new antisemitism" is apparently about criticism of Israeli policies and of Zionism; it is not really about "antisemitism" per se, at least according to the advocates of that position here on Wikipedia. Third, I have consistently been pointing out that this is not an area that has any real existence as an academic subject. There are no peer-reviewed studies of "new antisemitism." My comment about Bigfoot was precisely on point, and was not meant to insult anyone. It is not about whether it is "serious or BS" -- a lot of people take Bigfoot quite seriously, and a lot of other people think it is a big hoax; I don't mean to judge either side. The same is true of "new antisemitism," though the fact is that the latter has been subject to even less scientific or academic analysis than Bigfoot. Thus, the question of Ali's "expertise" on ME affairs or antisemitism or anything else is simply a red herring. This is a political topic debated by media pundits, a scarce few of them who also have academic credentials. The fact that Ali has academic credentials as well is not relevant one way or another, but I am refuting the claim by Malcolm that he does not. As an editor of a peer-reviewed academic journal about left politics, he is well qualified to enter into this discussion. csloat (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
To csloat. Unfortunately I do not see points marked 1 to 8, but I probably understand what you do mean. To simplify, new antisemitism is NOT an aspect of antizionism, old or new (meaning : ideological or political), nor it is an aspect of criticism of Israeli policies. It is e. g. the denial of Holocaust by Mr. Ahmadinejiad. It is the kid in southern Italy who asked me whether Jews (not Israelis) still used to kill Messiahs (difficult to construct a plural, here). It is the taxi driver in Alexandria, Egypt, who told my wife (born there, expelled in 1963 and returned for my work duties) that finally the jews were all gone (Judenrein, not even true), etc. Re the academic subject, probably you are right, this is not (yet?) a subject for a semester - but it exists nevertheless. We may discuss it here, at Cambridge, possibly not at Tehran university, I dare say. Therefore, your assertion that as an editor ... he is well qualified, etc. just does not make sense. You cannot simply devitalize an issue removing it from real life to place it in a crystal palace where academics discuss the sex of angels. --UbUb (talk) 20:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, UbUb, the examples you give seem more to be plain old run of the mill anti-semitism in which hatred is expressed directly towards Jews. The concept "new anti-semitism" posits that there is a disguised form of anti-semitism that masquerades as opposition to Israel, support for Palestinians or various third world struggles, anti-imperialism, etc. Similar, perhaps, to the belief that opposition to affirmative action is really a disguised form of racism. And opponents of the concept of "new anti-semitism" generally believe that those who use the term are really exhibiting a disguised form of anti-Palestinianism, anti-third Worldism, anti-progressivism/leftism/communism, etc. So at least both sides are united in the belief that the other side is devious!BoodlesthecatMeow?21:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, sex with angels, who is being insulting here? Here are the "points 1-8" that I keep referring to. Boodles is of course quite correct, Ubub, you have a lot of examples of "antisemitism," but none of "new antisemitism." And it is the latter that has been clearly identified with anti-Zionism and criticism of Israeli policies. And it is not a concept that has been studied academically, therefore it makes little sense to insist on academic expertise before allowing someone to comment on the topic. So your insulting comment about sex with angels makes little sense here since I am not the one advocating that one must be an "expert" in order to comment; I am advocating the reverse -- this is a phenomenon among media pundits, and Ali is no less qualified than anyone else on this page to have an opinion about this topic. csloat (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I was discussing of the effect of the new antisemitism, quite the same of the good old one, not of the roots. The roots are clear, and it is not this discussion that will change them. IOW, the New Left, Mahmoud Ahmadinejiad, and whoever are igniting, but it is the common person who is translating into practice. And I am not particularly scared about the occasional strongman, rather by the effect of his actions towards persons not particularly trained to critical thought. - ah, by the way, there is a difference between of and with, don't you think?--UbUb (talk) 09:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that either the "new antisemitism" is something qualitatively different than "antisemitism" or it isn't. If it isn't, as you seem to be advocating, then this article should be merged into antisemitism. But the text of this article argues differently. csloat (talk) 11:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
If I may intervene very briefly here. I am wary of my point about scholarly v. non-scholarly sources becoming a kind of proxy for the argument about whether NAS is serious or BS. This is not what I intended. I realize that my Britney Spears example may have been construed as suggesting that NAS is trivial pop-culture nonsense, but it wasn't meant this way at all. It was a reductio ad absurdum the point of which was only that it is not always the case that we should prefer scholarly sources over popular ones.
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. But it isn't primarily a scholarly concept. To be sure, a number of scholars have commented on it, used the term and so on, but – just like with "new antisemitism" – they tend to do so passingly, in the pursuit of other more rigorous arguments. This is natural enough; modern scholarship tends to be very wary of sweeping generalizations, abstract trans-historical comparisons, talk of dormant "viruses" or "specters" rearing their ugly heads, etc. Such memes may be thought-provoking, defensible rhetoric, fair comment, and so on – without however constituting the sort of materially rigorous analysis characteristic of accepted scholarship. Understanding this distinction should have nothing to do with whether or not we subscribe to the concept in question.--G-Dett (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
G-Dett your view that New Antisemitism is not being a scholarly concept is contradicted by the article itself. You might want to read History of the concept: [13]. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Can you please cite the peer-reviewed studies that measure "new antisemitism" as an observable phenomenon? I must have missed them when I re-read that section of the article. csloat (talk) 22:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I already listed, above, the scholars who seem qualified to speak on New Antisemitism who are already in the article. Do you contest the qualifications of Jack Fischel, Pierre-André Taguieff, Irwin Cotler, Brian Klug, and Norman Finkelstein? Those are all writers with substantial knowledge of Jewish history, and of antisemitism in its historical and social asapects.
The journal Tariq Ali is associated with is the New Left Review. What standards they use for peer-review I do not know, but the WP article describes the New Left Review as a "political journal" which aims at "the reestablishment of Socialism as a viable force in English working-class politics." In what way does being on the editorial board this journal qualify Tariq Ali as knowledgeable about about the history of antisemitism (new or old), and its social manifestations? He is a leftist political activist who knows nothing about the subject of this article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Good Lord, Malcolm, of course I've read the "History of the Concept" section. And followed up with the actual references, which should be your next step. Taguieff is indeed an academic; however, his book La Nouvelle Judéophobie was published by a popular press in France, and with a grant from the American Jewish Committee was translated and published in America by another non-academic press under the sensationalist title Rising From the Muck: The New Anti-Semitism in Europe. This title seems at first rather surprising, since within its pages Taguieff gives detailed reasons for his rejection of the term "antisemitism" in favor of "judeophobia"; but if such a contradiction would be intolerable by the standards of a university imprint, as a commercial decision by a non-academic press it made great sense. This was 2004 – the year when popular sensationalist books and articles about "the new antisemitism" were all the rage, and this one was packaged to sell.
And things in the "History of the Concept" section go downhill pretty quickly from there. You have the ADL book, which is decidedly not a work of scholarship, followed by two brief scholarly dismissals of it. Then you've got a speech given by a historian in the private home of the Israeli prime minister; nuff said on that. Then all the quasi-self-published Chip Berlet stuff, which never in fact mentions the "new antisemitism." Berlet is a Wikipedian as well as a non-academic researcher, and somewhere in the archives of this talk page you'll find his rather strained explanation of why he avoids the term "new antisemitism" in his published writings but wants those published writings prominently featured in the Wikipedia article on the "new antisemitism," and believes his opinion of their relevance should suffice. Make of those lucubrations what you will.
The "History of the Concept" section does not demonstrate the concept's academic pedigree. But it's presented so as to seem to, as your take on it illustrates, and this is exactly the problem I've been talking about.--G-Dett (talk) 01:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
P.S. A further thing to note about the "History of the Concept" section is that it spuriously conflates a historical timeline with a timeline of conceptual development, so as to give the impression of a scholarly pedigree stretching back decades. The "1960s" section comes entirely from a book written in 2002, while the "1970s" section comes from a book written in 1973 and never cited or acknowledged by any writer on contemporary "new antisemitism," and then with the "1980s" section we're entirely in the hands of a Wikipedian who wrote back in 1990 about what he didn't call then – and doesn't call now, except on Wikipedia – the "new antisemitism." The Wiki-policy violation here is WP:SYN, but what I'm getting at is a more basic violation of the norms of any source-based research, to wit, a failure to distinguish between an incrementally evolving analytical approach on the one hand, and a rhetorical meme periodically reinvented (without attribution or analogy) by journalists and other popular or casual writers on the other. When the ADL's Abe Foxman put out another book on the "new antisemitism" in 2003, thirty years after the first, even he didn't cite or acknowledge his organization's previous "study"; in fact it presented the "new antisemitism" as if it were a brand-new concept Foxman was hatching as he put pen to paper. That is what's called a "tell." Scholarly concepts are always scrupulously historicized, contextualized, placed within an intellectual genealogy. The only source of ours who connects all the disparate writings about a "new antisemitism" at work in this or that time or place is Norman Finkelstein, whom I gather you haven't read. You keep citing him as evidence of the scholarly viability of the concept, but in fact his book aims to demolish the intellectual and historical integrity of the meme, by showing how it is endlessly recycled, always presented as an unprecedented and urgent crisis, with previous iterations of it obscured from view.--G-Dett (talk) 03:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
The New Left Review is peer reviewed and well respected in the academy despite its politics. You can't say the same of trade paperbacks underwritten by lobbyist organizations. Again, can you cite a single peer reviewed study on the "new antisemitism" as an academic category? All of this is beside the point - I'm not the one arguing that we should compare Ali vs. Kulg's academic qualifications (or anyone else); my point is that this is not a concept with academic standing and thus we shouldn't be putting arbitrary qualifications on the article just to exclude those writers whom we don't like. This is a political football. csloat (talk) 02:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
csloat wrote: "my point is that this is not a concept with academic standing". Really? A quick Google Scholar search came up with these sources:
[14][15][16][17][18]
I don't have time right now to search for more refs, but these alone indicate that New Antisemitism has been, and continues to be, a subject of academic study. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Do they in fact indicate this, Malcolm? One by one:
Your first link is to a paper published in a scholarly journal put out by a prestigious press, but the author (Brian Klug) is explicitly undermining NAS as a "confused concept." Look at the abstract: "Some commentators today speak of a 'new anti-Semitism'. They claim, first, that there is a new wave or outbreak of hostility towards Jews that began with the start of the second Palestinian intifada in September 2000 and is continuing at the present time. Second, and more fundamentally, the 'new anti-Semitism' is said to involve a new form or type of hostility towards Jews: hostility towards Israel. This is the claim under discussion in Klug's paper. The claim implies an equivalence between (a) the individual Jew in the old or classical version of antisemitism and (b) the state of Israel in the new or modern variety. Klug argues that this concept is confused and that the use to which it is put gives a distorted picture of the facts. He begins by recalling classical antisemitism, the kind that led to the persecution of European Jewry to which Herzl's Zionism was a reaction. On this basis, he briefly reformulates the question of whether and when hostility towards Israel is antisemitic. He then discusses the so-called new form of antisemitism, especially the equation of anti-Zionism with antisemitism."
Your second link is to an archived version of an unpublished essay someone posted on his personal website.
Your third link is to an essay published in a collection put out by a non-academic press. It has four footnotes, three of them to newspapers.
Your fourth link appears to be dead. Or do you need some sort of special login?
Your fifth and final link is to an article in the same journal as your first link. It's difficult to tell from the abstract whether the author rejects "new antisemitism" like Klug, but it does appear that he refers to the term, shall we say, cautiously, with latex gloves and scare quotes, as it were; and the language of the abstract indicates that he sees the phrase as a journalistic meme, exactly as I've been saying. "Silverstein's essay explores the social drama surrounding the reported rise of a 'new antisemitism' in France in the context of a history of violence and present discrimination against French Muslims. Eschewing the essentializing approaches to Muslim antisemitism characteristic of many critics and pundits, the essay shows how current categories of ethnicity and religion in France (e.g. Jewish, Muslim, Arab and Berber) developed historically through colonial conquest, anti-colonial struggle and postcolonial racist violence."
With respect, Malcolm, evaluating "new antisemitism"'s place in contemporary scholarship requires more than typing something into the search bar of Google Scholar. "Britney Spears" gets 3990 hits on Google Scholar, to "new antisemitism"'s 166.--G-Dett (talk) 14:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
G-Dett, I said it was just a quick search. I do think it makes clear that the subject has gotten scholarly attention. As for those articles that are critical of New Antisemitism, that is still scholarly attention, and I have no interest in pushing a POV in theis article. I would like a good quality article, and am not interested in pushing any POV. The Tariq Ali sourced paragraph is a problem, not because he is critical of New Antimitism, but because it is really nothing more than a rant attacking Zionism and Israel; and because of the obviously defective logic that it is okay to attack Israel and Zionists because they are wealthy and powerful (to whatever extent that is even true). Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Huh? The quote says nothing of the sort. "Getting scholarly attention" does not mean it is a scholarly topic. Again, please cite the peer reviewed studies that treat this as a measurable (or at least as an identifiable) scholarly phenomenon? csloat (talk) 17:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I just got around to taking a look at the actual source for the Tariq Ali paragraph [19]. Scholarly? What a laugh! He makes one ridicusly incorrect, false, statement after another without any supporting documentation and without a single source cited. It is a work of fiction, filled with fanciful statements like, "Israel was created in 1948 by the British Empire..." and "Anti-semites and Zionists shared one thing in common: the view that Jews were a special race". And it was published in CounterPunch. Impressive that. This is some of what the Wikipedia article says about CounterPunch:
Franklin Foer of The New Republic and political commentator Steven Plaut have written articles pointing out that CounterPunch is biased against Israel and the USA, charging it with publishing anti-American, anti-Israel and anti-Semitic views.
CounterPunch has also been criticised by socialist activists Tony Greenstein and Roland Rance of Jews Against Zionism, who say it is too favorable to writers who blur the distinction between Zionism and Judaism. CounterPunch has also been criticized for publishing articles by authors such as Alan Cabal and Daniel A. McGowan who elsewhere have defended the free speech of Holocaust deniers such as Ernest Zundel. According to the critics, these authors have also sought to legitimize the views of such Holocaust deniers.[20]
Look csloat, and G-Dett, you both are going to have to grow up and get used to the idea that the Tariq Ali paragraph is not going back into the article. I can't understand how that nonsense got into the article in the first place. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Malcolm, the whole point of our NPOV policy - have you read it? - is that views we do not like or do not agree with or do not respect can be included in Wikipedia. So your above comment is irrelevant. How much we think a view is evil or stupid is simply not relevant. What is relevant is that the point of view be notable and come from a reliable source. Ali is in fact a notable figure; the New Left Review is a respected journal that publishes serious scholarship, and whose articles are assigned in university courses and cited in other academic journals. Whether you agree or disagree with the editorial vision or the journals politics is ... again, not germaine, unless you are trying to prove that you reject our NPOV policy. Is that your point? Slrubenstein | Talk19:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
What you are saying seems contrary to WP:Reliable sources [21]. It is true that Tariq Ali is notable as an English political activist, but he has no knowledge of antisemitism, or anything else that would qualify him to speak on this issue in a Wikipedia article. I could, at most, see a small mention of him someplace in the article, but not with his photograph and a paragraph placed just below Norman Finkelstein [22], as though he was a scholar who knows something about the subject.
This article is not a study of social attitudes toward Jews, or the negative stereotyping of Judaism. It is just an article about a rather controversial claim of a New Antisemitism, and sourcing in the article should be limited to authors who understand the issue. Tariq Ali certainly has an attitude, but not knowledge of the subject to justify his use as a source. Also, since there are already critical sources in the article, I do not see how NPOV is an issue.
The article by Tariq Ali [23] that is the source for the disputed paragraph was not published in the New Left Review, but in CounterPunch and il manifesto. If you read that article, you will see it contains many claims, but no documention and not a single source is cited. I do not see how you can justify using that as the source for a paragraph in this article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, RS is a better basis for discussing the inclusion of this passage, than your own dislike of Ali or his views. So I appreciate your most recent comment and the shift in your explanation for your views. That said, he is a "public intellectual" who has a long history of criticism of Israel. Since this article identifies New anti-Semitism with a critique of a certain kind of criticism of Israel or Zionism, it seems to me that his views are noteworthy enough for inclusion. He writes in venues that are reliable for public discussion of controversial politics, which seems quite relevant to this article. Slrubenstein | Talk20:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Slrubenstein, I understand that you are a highly respected administrator on Wikipedia. I also understand that this conversation has been so long that no one would willingly read it all. Nevertheless, I am amazed that you think my opposition to the disputed paragraph, sourced to Tariq Ali, was ever based on personal dislike. That is incorrect. Could show me an edit where I said that my opposition was based on my emotional reactions? My criticism has always been based, instead, on my view that he is an unqualified source for the subject of this article. If it had really been my intention to remove serious criticism of New Antisemitism (a concept that I do not fully support), I would have removed the material from Norman Finkelstein who's criticism of the subject is certainly more damaging than Tariq Ali's. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Malcolm, your comment confuses me. First of all, I thought it was clear that my earlier view that you supported your claim to exclude the text because you thought Tariq Ali wrong was based on your 18:41, 21 August 2008 comment. If that was not clear, let me make it clear: I was responding to that comment. Second of all, I am now complimenting you on introducing RS as an issue which is a shift away from your 18:41, 21 August 2008 comment. So again, it is clear that I no longer think your opposition is based on personal dislike. get it? I no longer think this. I explicitly appreciate your changing to RS as an issue. I still think you are wrong, but at least we are now dealing with policy and not just your view that the counterpunch essay is ridiculous and makes you laugh. So let's stick to RS. No one is claiming that Tariq Ali is an expert on Israeli history; but the Counter Punch essay is a reliable source on what Tariq Ali, a prominent public intellectual, thinks. Slrubenstein | Talk14:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Slrubenstein, I am sure I am just as confused by your comments as you are by mine.
Reliable sources (RS) has been my objection from beginning to end -- although I prefer using English to wiki-speak terms like "RS". My very first comment was "As far as I can see he has no qualifications to be used as a source for on New Antisemitism in this article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)".
Let me make my complaint clear: You're 20:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC) edit claims that my objection to the Tariq Ali sourced paragraph was (previously) based on my emotional reactions. You wrote: "Well, RS is a better basis for discussing the inclusion of this passage, than your own dislike of Ali or his views." That is incorrect, and I really do not appreciate having my motivations incorrectly characterized.
RS is not about the person quoted but about where he was published. See WP:RS for details. And as we have established ad nauseam, Ali is as qualified as anyone quoted here to comment on this; his comments are notable, and they are published in a RS. Are we done here? csloat (talk) 15:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
csloat, you are quite mistaken about WP:RS. It says, in the second paragraph: "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."
You will notice, please, that this sentence says that an author used as a source must be reliable in relation to the subject at hand. The subject at hand is antisemitism, and Tariq Ali knows nothing about it. Of course, it is also true that CounterPunch, in which the article was published, is not a reliable source....particularly since it has a accumulated criticism for "publishing anti-American, anti-Israel and anti-Semitic views" [25]. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
No; the subject is "new antisemitism," not "antisemitism," and Ali's opinion about it is notable (as we have established over and over and over and over again in this ridiculously long dialogue). And, of course, Counterpunch is a reliable source, whether or not some Wikipedia editor criticized it for being "anti-American." Get off it, Malcolm, the consensus is completely against you and you are beating a dead horse. csloat (talk) 16:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
New Antisemitism is just a subcategory of antisemitism, and logically, it is impossible for someone to be unreliable in the category, but reliable in the subcategory. Likewise it is impossible to be a heart specialist without being an M.D. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Calling "new antisemitism" a "subcategory of antisemitism" begs the very question that folks like Ali are bringing up. And I don't think anyone's going for heart surgery here so your other comment is not relevant. Again we have multiple arguments above that you have consistently and repeatedly ignored explaining why Ali's qualifications are appropriate for the comments here. csloat (talk) 17:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, no problem. It's in the paragraph where you said "New Antisemitism is just a subcategory of antisemitism, and logically, it is impossible for someone to be unreliable in the category, but reliable in the subcategory." The fallacy was begging the question, and I explained that in the paragraph that begins "Calling "new antisemitism" a "subcategory of antisemitism" begs the very question that folks like Ali are bringing up." Let me know if there is any other confusion you are having so we can clear that up and move on. Thanks. csloat (talk) 20:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I have been quoted above in an attempt to disparage CounterPunch. The summary in the article distorts my views, and appears to have been tendentiously edited since I last looked at the article. To make it clear, I consider an article in CounterPunch by Tariq Ali to be a reliable source for his views, and I consider Tariq Ali to be a relevant authority for this article. The whole notion of a "new antisemitism" is disputed, and many would argue that it has been developed in an attempt to delegitimise any criticism of Israel or Zionism. My (misquoted) article was an attempt to reassert a socialist and anti-Zionisr opposition to anti-Jewish racism, and to deplore the use of anti-Jewish motifs and rhetoric by some putative anti-Zionists. I may have failed in this -- in which case I wil, need to make another attempt, in a different forum -- but I will not allow my views to be twisted into the service of something they oppose. RolandR (talk) 21:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
RolandR, I excerpted the Wikipedia article, and gave a direct link to the section of the article it came from. I did not "distort" anything. I would appreciate it if you not make such accusations, because that is incivility: WP:CIVIL. If you have something to say, it is quite enough if you say it without disparaging the good faith of other editors. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry Malcolm, I did not intend to suggest that you had distorted anything. What I meant was that, since the article had been cited in the WP entry on CounterPunch, another editor had tendentiously edited that article. My complaint was abour what CounterPunch excluded, not about what it included. I fully accept that you made your own comment above in good faith, and I was trying to point out that you were relying on misinformation. RolandR (talk) 22:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
