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.
Regarding the images, it seems we have recently moved the Zombietime image from the lead to the first section, added another image from the same protest, and now moved that second image down to the section, "Opposition to Israel not necessarily antisemitism." This is to consolidate a few points discussed above.
If we are adding this second image of the protest (supported largely because it is discussed in a sufficiently reliable source[3]) it seems noteworthy that the exact issue presented in the photo is discussed in the section 1980's - present day: political convergence. (In fact, the section should possibly be renamed as it does not discuss the convergence theme at all, potentially as a result of subsequent editing). This would seem to suggest that the second image is more appropriate for this section.
If so, the question is what to do with the Zombietime image. I realize this has been discussed ad nauseum, but I have two questions. First, are we confident that this image depicts the topic of New Antisemitism as it has been covered by reliable sources? My understanding of this argument is that the image shows the "political convergence" discussed by some authors. However, the actual convergence here seems not to be the one discussed by sources, or in our caption, but if anything then primarily an odd form of opposition to racism and war. The main demon is a "capitalist whiteman" while the main anti-Zionist sentiment seems to be that its proponents are agitating this capitalist white man toward war. Adding in the element of the "counterfeit Jews," I don't think you have to be clear what message the poster is attempting, to say that it is not generally what is referred to as the "New antisemitism." Second, does the image fit well into this article? If so I'm not sure where. The main problems I see, however, are that a.) the entire anti-racism message in the poster (seen more in the matching poster[4]), strange as it may be, is rendered illegible by our presentation, meaning that we are presenting the image inaccurately, and b.) unless done very carefully, the image has a strong potential to damage the article in the same way as would, for example, a cartoon by Carlos Latuff.
These are just a few issues, and I know that many others have been discussed, but I wonder if people can address the specific suggestion that 1.) the newer image is a better fit for the initial section covering 1980-present, and 2.) if the Zombietime picture from the same protest still belongs somewhere else in the article, this needs a clearer explanation. Thanks, Mackan79 (talk) 08:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
As I indicated above, there are extreme WP:UNDUE concerns with having two images from a single protest in this article, unless we radically revise its content. So one of them has to go. I suggest removing the image that doesn't have a reliable source. csloat (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Clarification: Both these photos were taken by the ultra-right blogger Zombie, but it seems like one was cited by a few news articles as evidence of "current anti-semitism", whereas the one with the academic citation is meant to be specifically "new anti-semitism". Shii(tock)03:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
The blogger in question does seem to be perversely interested in suggesting that Barack Obama engaged in "extremist" activities at college, such as protesting South African apartheid.[5] But that's neither here nor there-- it's not like he faked the posters. Shii(tock)05:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Interesting. I think that pretty much shoots his credibility. I suggest removing all images from Zombie on Wikipedia. And just for the record, I have defended the use of these images in the past. But after seeing this, clearly, Zombie is neither neutral or credible, and cannot be considered a reliable source. Viriditas (talk) 09:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Good point -- so both are not only images of the same protest, but they are taken by the same photographer, who seems to have his work showcased on multiple Wikipedia pages. I think this compounds the UNDUE concern I raised. Again, it's best to stick just with the photo that is published in a reliable source which specifically makes the connection to "new" antisemitism. Also. I'm not sure either has an "academic" citation, but that word may be ambiguous. csloat (talk) 04:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I haven't been following this, but wow, you guys are still trying to get rid of that image. So is a supposed vio of UNDUE the current argument for removing it? <<-armon->> (talk) 05:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Nah, the problem is that the Feb 2003 pictures seem to be multiplying now, and it's better to have only one of them. Shii(tock)05:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah as Shii points out, the problem is we now have two images taken by the same non-notable photographer on the same day. It's as if Wikipedia is becoming his portfolio. I'm sure there are better ways for him to advertise his camera skills. csloat (talk) 06:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Two photos is a pretty crummy portfolio. I still don't see what the problem is. They both have independent citations which is far beyond what is needed for images on WP. <<-armon->> (talk) 12:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Fine, then let's adjust the article to state that "new antisemitism" is something mostly associated with a single protest in California in 2003. Otherwise we are giving VAST undue weight to these two sign-carriers. Cheers, csloat (talk) 16:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Let's put the following points up for discussion:
1. Is there any disagreement that it's better to have one photo of a guy carrying a sign on February 15, 2003 in San Francisco than two?
2. Is there any disagreement that the old photo is at least superficially the same old-fashioned anti-Semitism, whereas the new photo more accurately describes the "new anti-Semitism" which the article is about?
1- no; 2- no; 3- no. Thanks for summarizing the issues so concisely; the time has definitely come to remove the old image. csloat (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment: While it's always fun to see two people on the same side agreeing with each other, I can't stress enough how different these images are. The second image is only a borderline case of new antisemitism while the long standing one is a much clearer case. I completely disagree with the assessment that "Zionist pigs" is standard antisemitism and it's about time that repeated requests to remove the image without a proper same level of relevance replacement is suggested. Current usage of the second image is actually perfect as it signifies a borderline case worthy of the "not antisemitism" section. JaakobouChalk Talk18:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
So can we adjust the article to state that new antisemitism is mostly a phenomenon that occurred at a single protest in February 2003? csloat (talk) 18:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Jaakobou, I wonder if you can support your comments with reference to any reliable sources. As far as I can see your contention is completely subjective, that the first image seems like a better example to you, regardless of the reliable sources. As far as "Zionist pigs," I don't believe anyone has discussed that as the primary issue of the poster; the point about "standard antisemitism" has to do with the "classic antisemitic motifs" noted in the image caption (presumably starting with the large demonic figure in the middle of the page). Beyond that the reference to "Counterfeit Jews" also appears to be explicitly antisemitic, however, and a theme I do not believe has ever been discussed as "New antisemitism." In my view, the problems with the older image are profound; not only is it a poor example of New Antisemitism in that it does not illustrate the widely discussed issues of this topic (other than in vaguest and least meaningful sense of antisemitism on the "left"), but our presentation is also extremely misleading by not acknowledging or even rendering visible the intended themes of the poster. This is aside from the fact that we also have a much better sourced image from the same protest that much more clearly fits into this article. It seems to me that this requires more than subjective claims that this is a perfect illustration of the topic. Mackan79 (talk) 12:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
So, the balance of arguments clearly favor the removal of at least one of this photographer's images, and it seems the one without the source specifically connecting it to "new antisemitism" is the best one to go. Can we do that now or will another edit war ensue? If not, can we remove the other one? If not, can someone explain why it is necessary to showcase this non-notable photographer's work, or this single protest, on this page? And if we're going to keep the unverifiable image, can we at least restore the WP:OR warning tag that used to be on the image? And can we restore that image to where it was after the extended mediation on it? It seems the proponents of that image have used the discussion as an excuse to render the mediation results moot -- the image is now practically in the lead where it was before with no OR warning. This is really not acceptable. Cheers, csloat (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Well,
Determining that an image that barely fits the category is "much more clearly fits into this article" seems wrong. Clearly both images can fit into the article and actually both are contributing to its encyclopedic value. I'm a bit dismayed that the difference is deemed as "standard" antisemitism in contrast with "new" antisemitism with the attempt to remove images. Discussions over the validity of the sources for this image have been long and unless we intend on opening this again for an RfC, then I think it would be improper for a 4 man discussion where opinions are at 2 against 2 for how to treat the issue to change the long standing status quo. I'm open to the RfC process though if you two insist on this issue. CS, I would request that you make your arguments without suggesting "clarity" where there is non. That is unacceptable behavior.
Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk21:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
PLease discuss the arguments, not the editors. I explained what was clear; what is not clear to you? I'll tell you what's not clear to me -- your claim that "Clearly both images can fit into the article and actually both are contributing to its encyclopedic value." That's nonsense. I don't really see any evidence that either is contributing to encyclopedic value here, but I long ago accepted the need for compromise on that point. However, what you and others have done is created a situation where we now have a huge WP:UNDUE problem, we have a (lousy, imho) photographer using Wikipedia to promote his own artwork, and we have the implication that "new antisemitism" is something mostly associated with a single protest. We also have an original research problem with one of the images, and we have a page layout that violates the spirit if not the letter of what was agreed to in mediation. That much is certainly clear. You continue to make assertions that both images are somehow essential, but you haven't yet backed up one of these assertions with so much as an explanation, let alone evidence. csloat (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Other comments would be great, but I agree that if Jaakobou wants to maintain the earlier image then he should support his position. The claim that the new image "barely fits the category" is again simply incorrect, given that our entire discussion on 1980s-present day focuses precisely on the issue of equating Zionism with Nazism, based directly on Robert Wistrich's article.[6] As he says, "Moreover, it is precisely the equation of Zionism with Nazism which is in my opinion the most characteristic mode of the new anti-Semitic anti-Zionism in the early 1980s, one which inverts all our assumptions and therefore deserves special attention and consideration." If you want to contest this, then please do, but to keep stating the contrary without explanation or support doesn't help to resolve this. Mackan79 (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Well,
That the pictures come from the same person (I wouldn't call him artist based on a couple snaps in a rally) and that they are both from the same rally doesn't imply at all that new antisemitism is confined to that rally alone and certainly doesn't promote that person's photographic capabilities/name into stardom. I don't think this is a valid argument for rejecting content that illustrates the topic of the article or it's subsections.
An image that equates Israel with the Nazis is a grotesque and disguistingly insensitive exaggeration but not 'antisemitic' on it's face as people tend to exaggerate and equate everyone they think is doing wrong with the Nazis. As such, this image fits perfectly for a subsection that explains why people believe we are talking about criticism rather than real antisemitism. The other image is a better, encyclopedic illustrative fit for the general topic of anti-Zionism getting mixed up with other issues such as anarchism, anti-Americanism, and antisemitism. This is the main basis of the "new" anti-semitism and the image helps illustrate some of the points regardless on when/where it was taken. I'd have no objection for other fitting images to be added, but I've yet to hear a convincing one as to why this image should be removed against previous consensus (or semi-consensus). The quality of the (copy-free) image is the best we've got and it adds volume and life to some of the mentioned motifs.
To be frank, I've lost faith that we can resolve this without a large scale RfC.
You may be right that we can't resolve it alone, but I'm curious on what basis you are saying it is either anti-American or anarchist. The rally is in San Fransisco, not in Europe; anti-war activists in the U.S. generally do not consider themselves un or anti-American. Also note that the primary figure in the poster is labeled "Capitalist Whiteman," not simply as an American. If Zombietime is correct, then these guys come from A.N.S.W.E.R., standing for "Act Now to Stop War and End Racism." The description of anti-Americanism, thus, appears to be incorrect. I'm not sure which aspect if any is anarchist. Of course as I said it also seems odd to me to ignore that our presentation renders the label of the main figure in the poster completely illegible, with such a loud, misleading and confusing result. Mackan79 (talk) 09:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
It seems we have a couple of options that respect both sides of this argument: (1) remove the old zombietime image without the source. That seems the most obvious choice, and Jakabou has not explained why that is a bad choice. (2) remove the new zombietime image and move the old zombietime image to where the new one is or thereabouts. I would go along with this choice as well, adding the OR warning to the caption that someone inexplicably removed. I'm not sure what other options we have; otherwise we make this single protest become the main visible point of reference for all "new antisemitism."
Perhaps the other problems discussed with both of these images can be resolved in the caption somehow; my biggest problem with these images has always been that they seem to be giving the impression that antisemitism is common and/or generally tolerated at American antiwar protests. Nothing could be further from the truth. Comments? csloat (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I support the first for my reasons above, along with moving the new image to the section which discusses that issue of equating Zionism with Nazism (essentially where the old image is currently). Whether or not the new image is retained, the old Zombietime image also is quite a poor fit for the lower section (Opposition to Israel not necessarily antisemitism), since by all appearances the old image is basically rabid in its antisemitism. Of course that aspect of the photo makes it difficult to fit into any part of the article, but certainly it would be a particular problem there.
In any case, this post is primarily to repeat your request for additional comments. The primary issue here is the addition into the discussion of a new photo, from the same rally as the old photo, that unlike the old photo has been linked to the topic of New antisemitism by a reliable source.[7] The new photo has now been added along with the old one, but the question is whether it should not instead be considered a more effective and less problematic substitute. Mackan79 (talk) 09:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I see that Viriditas has removed both images, but Jaakobou has replaced them citing this discussion. However, we continue to wait for Jaakobou's position -- that we should include both of these photos from the same rally -- to be supported, without it happening. I have seen Jaakobou suggest that the new image does not clearly illustrate the topic of New antisemitism and therefore that the old image must stay, but this is directly contravened by this and this source, at least. He has suggested that the old image is a perfect illustration of New antisemitism, saying that it illustrates a confluence of anti-Americanism, anarchism and antisemitism, but I have questioned whether there is anything clearly anti-American or anarchist about the poster (I don't that it is either one) and have not received a response. Meanwhile, many, many problems have been noted with the current presentation of these photos. If others wish to add to this discussion, I'd think that this is the time. Mackan79 (talk) 08:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure we agreed about an RfC. The obvious problem here is that this is a politicized issue, in which the idea of unanimous agreement on any point like this seems extremely minimal. This is largely why Wikipedia isn't supposed to go by votes, though, but by consensus and reasoned discussion. We've had !votes before, and found that dozens to scores of people contest this image, but some people still support it. We now have another image from the same rally which as far as I can see is inarguably better supported by reliable sources. Additional problems with the older image have also been noted, particularly that our presentation renders its main themes illegible and consequently misrepresents them, and that the assessment in the caption of "Anti-Americanism" is problematic and disputed. One editor who wasn't involved in this discussion but who had earlier supported the images then said that both images should be removed, and did so, but you reverted him citing this discussion. Having gone through all of this, I admit the idea of an RfC strikes me as a bit gratuitous. That isn't to say I'll oppose it; I suppose I'm saying that if you're the one asking for it, without addressing the above issues, then I'd think that's up to you. Mackan79 (talk) 11:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I wonder how many times we can go over the same ground. Perhaps we could ask someone very patient and previously uninvolved to summarise the two sides of the argument for us before we decide whether another RfC is the way forward. I remember that in a previous discussion CJ Currie made a detailed analysis of the poster's iconography and concluded that it emanated from an African-American version of British Israelism. If this is true, then the image is unconnected either with the political Left or with political Islam. And since the central tenet of the New Antisemitism thesis is that an upsurge in antisemitism has resulted from an alignment of Leftists and Islamists, ergo the poster is not a relevant illustration of this article's subject. I've made several other points about the image in previous discussions and would prefer not to have to pull them out again. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Specifically, they are Black Hebrew Israelites. From that article: "In late 2008, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) described as black supremacist what it called "the extremist fringe of the Hebrew Israelite movement". It wrote that the members of such groups "believe that Jews are devilish impostors and ... openly condemn whites as evil personified, deserving only death or slavery". " This is obviously not a phenomenon addressed by the writers on New antisemitism. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
It's an interesting point but I disagree with this being a point for removing the image. As there is no motivation for those who write about new antisemitism to focus on this fringe group when there are more mainstream groups who illustrate the same phenomena. I have no objection of adding a note under the image that it is related to the Black Hebrew Israelites group if this is indeed the case (should probably be referenced). JaakobouChalk Talk10:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not following, are you saying that people who write about new antisemitism have focused on the old image? This hasn't been shown. From all I can see this is absurd, that we are promoting this image as the concept of "New antisemitism" when it is something utterly else, based on an inaccurate caption, no sourcing, and when better sourced images are available. I'm going to move the newer image up for now for these reasons, and hope that you will consider the above discussion. Mackan79 (talk) 22:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I understand your frustration as you want your personal view on this to triumph, but I don't think there was any consensus for this removal of a long standing image where multiple editors have already weighed in. I'm open to a change in consensus if a well addressed RfC is opened, but not as a unilateral descision from 1-2 editors against previous crude consensus. I hope that you will consider the above discussion as well and respect the perspective of fellow long standing editors and use a normalized process to resolve out dispute. JaakobouChalk Talk09:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
There was never a consensus for two images of almost exactly the same thing from the exact same protest. This was not a unilateral decision; you appear to be the only person arguing for keeping both of these. csloat (talk) 09:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
There has never been a crude consensus for the old Zombietime image of any sort, but besides that it was not a unilateral decision and you have still not justified your position after several requests. Here instead you offer only a baseless comment about personal frustrations. Normalized process is that if a single editor takes a position against multiple editors, then it is up to the single editor to explain and garner support for his or her position. You haven't done either; Csloat and I have repeatedly asked for others to comment, and at this point two editors have arrived (Viriditas and apparently Itsmejudith) to support the removal, in addition to Shii, Csloat and myself. You have now reverted two editors while not explaining your position any further. As I have said, however, this is not a vote, but a discussion; the problems with the image are obvious, and you are not engaging them. If other editors arrive, then they arrive, but from all I can tell you are simply creating hoops to jump through even as you do virtually nothing to justify your position or otherwise, which I do not see as reasonable. Mackan79 (talk) 13:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Edit war
Malcolm, you are currently edit-warring against consensus once again. It's apparent that you have a partner in this now, but what good can come of this? Is it just a matter of wearing the other side down? If you think the consensus can change, why not try to think of a compelling argument that might help change it? csloat (talk) 00:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I have made my view of the Tariq Ali quote very clear.
This article is about a claim of a new type of antisemitism.
Tariq Ali is not a reliable source on the subject of antisemitism.
Therefore it logically follows that Tariq Ali is not a reliable source for this article, and the quote from him has no place in the article.
If this is the argument, it isn't very well considered. As we all know, this article is largely about a political debate, and contentions that some commentary in that debate amounts to antisemitism. It is also about the criticism of these contentions, noted in the lead of the article. You can hardly argue then that the topic has nothing to do with the debate itself. Tariq Ali is not commenting outside the area of his expertise when he discusses this topic; it's at the center of his professional work. I don't see any basis for requiring anything else. Mackan79 (talk) 13:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Sloat, WP:POT accusations aren't helpful. I'm sorry but I haven't seen any compelling arguments on your part -just assertions. Please take your own advice.<<-armon->> (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Actually, your explanation above that Ali and F positions are different isn't just an assertion so sorry about that. <<-armon->> (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
We've answered those objections in spade Malcolm. This article is about "new antisemitism," not "a new type of antisemitism." If you read the article you will notice that there is disagreement about whether "new antisemitism" and "antisemitism" are the same category. By removing one participant in that disagreement, it appears that you are censoring the material. Again, consensus has been very clear in support of this position. Armon -- you're incorrect; if you re-read my and Mackan79's points above you should eventually see the differences even though you may find them to be subtle. Finally, both of you - please stop edit warring. Leave the material in the article until the consensus changes. Thanks. csloat (talk) 01:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
As pointed out in my edit summary, I struck the line above after I re-read Armon's correction. Am I correct that you are conceding this point Armon? In that case, quite apart from the discussion below about the "extremist" label, do you agree that the Ali material has a place in the article? csloat (talk) 06:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Commodore Sloat, you have just accused me of "censoring" material. We just had a long argument about this sort of stuff, and now you are already accusing me of bad faith editing. You had written (above) "why not try to think of a compelling argument", so I (once again) explained my position. My position on the Tariq Ali quote will not change, and I suppose your dismissing my position will not change either. The one thing I was hoping would change is your use of agressive incivility. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I explained why what you're doing amounts to censorship above Malcolm; it's your actions I'm challenging, not your faith. Your position may not change, but you must stop editing against consensus and accept that there will be some things in Wikipedia that you don't agree with. I'm not being uncivil or aggressive Malcolm, so stop waving around that charge like some kind of threat. It's actually aggressive and uncivil of you to do so. Cheers, csloat (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
And your claim that you alone can determine what is WP:NPOV and WP:RS, and that as long as you quote such a policy or guideline as some kind of joker or trump card you have the right to veto and remove material which most other editors are perfectly happy with, is entirely crap. As I have said, this horse is dead. It has ceased to be. --Nickhh (talk) 17:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I have asked many times for someone to show that Tariq Ali is a reliable source on the subject of antisemitism (the subject of this article) and that has never happened. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Well of course the subject of this article is actually "New antisemitism", the distinction being critical. And of course if you mean "reliable source" in WP-speak, WP:RS applies to publications rather than to individuals as such - the guideline is not about evaluating in a "pass or fail" sense the expertise or notability (or otherwise) of individuals. On most articles here, editors come to a rational agreement that someone is a qualified expert, or noted commentator or involved party or whatever. How would we show this to your satisfaction - should he produce a certificate? Do we need it noted in a WP:RS that he is a "reliable source" himself? Would you then query the bona fides or WP:RS-ness of that supporting source? Can you prove that anyone else quoted in this article is a "reliable source" on the subject of anti-semitism? As has in fact been pointed out several times, Tariq Ali is a prolific published author, a regularly published commentator and a noted and high-profile left-wing activist. He is indeed a reliable source for what he - and many on the left - thinks about the things he is noted for writing about, which includes Western politics and the Middle East. --Nickhh (talk) 19:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I've replaced the material again, basically after weighing that vs. raising Malcolm's editing style on AN/I or in some form of dispute resolution. Probably the wrong choice, but so it goes. Mackan79 (talk) 13:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Agree with this, per my lengthy post below. And edit warring against consensus, while explaining why you believe you are right on the talk page and then using "per talk" in your edit summary, is still, er, edit warring against consensus. --Nickhh (talk) 14:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Hiya, popping in as an uninvolved admin. I have reviewed the August 2008 discussions, and agree that there was a clear consensus that Tariq Ali is appropriate for inclusion. Anyone who continues to remove him from this article, may be subject to sanctions per WP:ARBPIA. Now, Consensus Can Change, but until/unless there is a clear consensus that Tariq Ali should be removed, the information should stay in the article. It can, however, be modified, per Wikipedia's policies on neutrality and do not give undue weight. Hope that helps clarify things, --Elonka18:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Elonka, there was a long discussion involving, for the most part, just three editors. I would say that made a majority in favor of keeping Tariq Ali; but since my objections were never answered by anyone, I do not consider the issue resolved. I see nothing at all support the claim by some of 12/1 majority. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
That appears to have been a discussion with sufficient input from numerous editors, to help determine current consensus. If there were other major discussions on the matter, please provide links and I'll be happy to review them. --Elonka19:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Not all of the above had the patience to engage you endlessly on this. All of your points have been dealt with painstakingly and methodically by those among them with the patience for that. You just keep repeating them. Once all your arguments about whether certain newspapers are WP:RS or not, and about WP:NPOV etc have been stripped away, you are left simply saying "I don't think Tariq Ali is a relevant or important commentator on this topic". That is simply your opinion, regardless of what WP rules you try to dress it up in. And that opinion has indeed been rejected by all the editors noted above. If you wish, you can now start a futile debate about whether there is consensus as to whether there is a consensus or not, but it seems to me that there is. Now I remember why I try to stay away from these articles. It is enough to drive you nuts. --Nickhh (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Tariq Ali is not being quoted as a reliable source; like everybody else in the article, he's offering an opinion about "new antisemitism". He is a historian and political commentator who has written about the Middle East, and he's being quoted concerning the nexus between the concept of "new antisemitism" and criticism of Israel. He seems better qualified to opine on the subject than some of the other people quoted in the article, such as Lawrence Summers, the French Interior Minister and Lord Janner of Braunstone. — Malik Shabazz (talk·contribs) 20:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree 100%, with both Elonka and Nickhh and Malik Shabazz. I expressed my view and have not added to it because I said what I believed clearly and accurately. There is no point talking around in circles. Malcolm, just because I choose not to humor you does not mean that my view counts less than yours. Slrubenstein | Talk20:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me? Where did I say, or imply, that? I have explained my view on this issue. I think you are wrong. I have a right to think, and say, that because I have explained rationally. You have every right to think I am wrong. But, but it seems to be you who wants me to shut up, and I have never said that to anyone. Never. I would not say that to my dog. You said, in that nice sounding way of yours, that you will not "humor" me. Your implication is nasty, and I never asked you or anyone else to "humor" me. But your use of that loaded word, "humor", carries with it the implication that you are superior and I am inferior. I have observed a number of cases in which you make use of that sort of dismissiveness. You are very good at dismissiveness. It proves that there is nothing that improves a skill like practice. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, before we go off on too much of a tangent here, can I please advise everyone to try and keep discussions focused on the article? Malcolm has kindly agreed to acknowledge the current consensus on this particular point, until/unless other new voices enter the discussion. So can we mark this particular thread closed, and move on to something else? Or is everyone happy with the current state of the article as-is? --Elonka00:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Fine by me - I did not see where he agreed to accept the consensus, I was going by his 19:31, 8 January 2009 post above dismissing me and eight other editors' views, and his comments below. If he now says he accepts the consensus, cool, I have nothing more to add except I am sorry he did not understand what I meant about humoring him; clearly people (myself included) have given him lots of space and time to air his views. Slrubenstein | Talk00:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Where did I say that I accept the "consensus"? I said exactly the opposite of that. As for the his claim that "clearly people (myself included) have given him lots of space and time to air his views", I must have missed that. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah, my apologies if I was putting words into your mouth (or on your screen). I was going by this comment, where you said that you would not return to the issue for awhile.[8] --Elonka00:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
So you do not accept consensus? Elonka, I wish you could mediate this! Malcolm: As to missing the space and time everyone has given you to express yourself,well, Malcolm, you have been expressing your views about Tariq Ali since around August 15, 2005. That is about five months of your expressing yourself. And you claim you missed that? How? Slrubenstein | Talk00:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
< edit conflict. When the occasion arises, I intend return to the issue because I think the majority is quite mistaken. If Slrubenstein thinks that my disagreeing with him is "dismissive," then he has to work out his own issues. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
There has been plenty of discussion since august, even if we took a day off here or there. Seriously Malcolm, the discussion stopped back then because consensus had been reached and everyone else moved on. Then along came an anon ip a couple weeks ago deleting the material; it was quickly replaced per consensus but then you jumped right into it again, revert warring and producing voluminous ad nauseam repetitions of your old arguments in the talk page that continued to this day. Now you tell us you still refuse to accept consensus and you will jump right back into it again as soon as you get the chance. This is not constructive editing. Part of the problem seems to be that you won't even take responsibility for your own edits -- you wait for another user to make the deletion (even a drive by anon ip), and then you jump on it and sink your teeth in, and you can still tell an admin with a straight face that you only removed the material twice and that you were only "supporting another user" rather than removing it yourself (even though the edit history of the article clearly shows you removing the material at least six times in the past couple weeks). I recall having the same problem with you before on another article; you kept claiming you weren't deleting material even though you obviously were and the edit histories proved it. I think it's important that you take responsibility for your own edits, whether or not you think you are jumping on someone else's bandwagon. And I also think it would be helpful not to lay in waiting to start up another edit war as soon as you get the chance -- instead, acknowledge the consensus and move on. If it looks like the consensus might change, by all means come to the talk page and voice your opinion, and let's discuss again, bringing in whatever new information or arguments you have discovered that might make a difference. But in the meantime it would be better to accept the consensus, and even better to actually take a look at the arguments the consensus is making and consider that it might be you who is mistaken. Best, csloat (talk) 01:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Was gone for a day, but glad to see WP:ARBPIA invoked here. This free admission of intent to disrupt in the future ("When the occasion arises") does not bode well, but hopefully now we can move on. Tarc (talk) 15:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Response section
OK here's an idea (not sure if it's a good one but it might end the arguments about material such as Ali). What if we had a section of indicative responses from the left/right/radical Islam to the concept of NAS? For that section we would "lower the standard" and present non-academics like Ali. <<-armon->> (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Who determines the criteria for what's an "academic"? Ali certainly fits the bill in many ways; he edits a well-respected academic journal; he's an Oxford-educated historian, etc. I'm not opposed to this idea if it puts an end to the censorship, but I'm not sure how this would look. (Sorry to use the loaded term "censorship," but that's what appears to be happening when you're cutting off one view from the debate, as I explained above). csloat (talk) 01:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Look, the material in question was actually published in two extremist sources -a communist newspaper il manifesto and a "radical newsletter". Like it or not, it violates WP policy to use such sources even if a number of people vote to include it. OTOH if editors think that the article would be improved by presenting the extremist POV on the topic, then maybe we should find some way of presenting them separately from the academic material. <<-armon->> (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Tariq Ali is an "extremist"? Or Counterpunch? Or il manifesto?? Sorry, but it's hard to believe you're taking this seriously. As noted above, Ali has academic credentials; comparing him to David Duke or whoever really isn't helpful. I don't mind creating separate sections, but using the article to call people names or make up nonsense that an independent Italian newspaper is "extremist" because it is communist (it shouldn't need to be said, but this is Italy we're talking about, not Texas). An actual "extremist" in Italy would be the guy who bombed il manifesto, not what is basically a mainstream newspaper for the independent Italian left. And to call Counterpunch "extremist" only makes sense in a world where Dick Cheney represents the center-left. Independent of all that, you certainly can't paint Ali as an extremist, so I'm not sure what you're point is -- again, his credentials are pretty well established. Sorry, Armon, but you're grasping at straws with this one. csloat (talk) 05:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I never said "communists are mainstream" nor did I say anything about "fascists." If you re-read the above you'll see my point was that Tariq Ali and the two publications that published a particular article are not extremist. When I used the word "mainstream" I was talking about il manifesto's place in the Italian left media. And yes, in that community, il manifesto is mainstream. "Extremist" would characterize the guy who tried to bomb the paper. Whether you would use the word "mainstream" in any instance is entirely irrelevant; the point here is that Ali and his commentary is not "extremist." Hopefully that explanation is more clear? csloat (talk) 06:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC) By the way, it's kind of silly to link to the word communism as if the relation between communism and extremism were self-evident. As I said, Italy is not Texas; most of the world is not Texas. "Communism" means many different things to many different people; an Italian communist in 2008 is not the same as a Chinese communist in 1956 or an Illinois communist in 1930 or a Peruvian communist in 1986. Some might be considered "extremist," some might not. Certainly il Manifesto is not extremist in this context. And I said the guy who bombed the paper was an extremist not because he was a fascist, but because he bombed the freakin paper. Surely that distinction is not difficult to understand? csloat (talk) 06:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
EDIT conflict:
Hans Slom projection of the European political spectrum.[1]
Yes, among the far left, il manifesto may indeed be "mainstream" -of course, for our purposes, that's utterly meaningless.
The guy you referred to who bombed them was a fascist. Please note where each ideology sits on the political spectrum. Time to move past your political bias, and give it a rest. <<-armon->> (talk) 06:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC) BTW that's a European, not a Texan, political spectrum. <<-armon->> (talk) 06:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you missed the rest of my comment in the edit conflict - as I said above, "communism" is not just one single thing. And this isn't about my political bias at all. The point isn't about "communism" or "mainstream" at all, whichever version you are referring to; it's about Ali, and my point is that he is not an "extremist." Let's try not to get distracted with irrelevancies. csloat (talk) 07:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
What's relevant is that you are simply resorting to special pleading. Ali is a far left activist, and what being used here was a conspiracy theory of his which was published in an extremist source. The material violates policy unless we can find some other way of using it. No amount of "communism means many things to many people" rubbish is going to change that. <<-armon->> (talk) 07:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Armon, Il Manifesto is (odd as it may seem to those not used to such things) a Communist newspaper, which is nonetheless totally in the mainstream of the Italian press. These things do exist in (Western) Europe, where Communist parties are not actually quite as out on the fringe, especially for example in France and Italy, as they are seen to be elsewhere. There is no likelihood that either Il Manifesto or Counterpunch fabricated this article; the former in particular falls totally within WP:RS; Ali is a noted and respected (by some, even if not by you and Malcolm) commentator - yes, from the left - on international politics, especially with reference to the Middle East & South Asia. There is no valid reason why this quote should not be included. Readers can then make up their own mind as to its worth or validity. We are now at the point where WP:CONSENSUS, WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:EDITWAR seem to be the relevant pages to look at. --Nickhh (talk) 08:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually the relevant policy is still Wikipedia:RS#Extremist_and_fringe_sources, despite your assertions otherwise. I don't understand why you're raising the likelihood that the article was fabricated unless you're attempting to argue that if it hasn't been, that somehow these fringe sources "reliable". That's neither the letter or the spirit of the relevant policy. <<-armon->> (talk) 09:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
OK I've just had a look online just in case I'm wrong about Il Manifesto (our article is a stub). There really isn't that much about the paper. It appears to be facing bankruptcy and it's journalists have got into trouble in Iraq. However I found this relevant analysis from the Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism and Racism, Tel Aviv University:
The Far Left and the Anti-globalization Movement
Italy’s far left rarely makes use of traditional anti-Jewish stereotypes but adopts a strongly anti-Israel line that extends to demonization and even the delegitimation of the State of Israel. Therefore, while it does not attack the Jews directly, in keeping with its generally hostile approach to Zionism it attributes to Israel part of the negative symbolism that classic antisemitism ascribes to Jews and Judaism. Holocaust denial, too, is practically absent from its cultural framework. However the horror of the Jewish genocide is banalized by comparisons between the modern Jewish state and Hitler’s Germany. At a seminar on “The Left and Israel” (24 Nov.) Piero Fassino, secretary of Democratici di Sinistra, the main Italian left-wing party, stated that the Communist newspaper Il Manifesto as well as many far left clubs have “anti-Jewish positions” (see below). On 18 December, Il Manifesto published an article by Alì Rashid, first secretary of the Palestinian Delegation in Italy, who justified the extremism of Hamas and Iran and compared the Palestinian nakba (catastrophe) to the Shoah.[9]
It's only a reliable source for far-left POV. Maybe there's still a way to use the article, but not if it, and Ali himself, is presented as equal to mainstream and scholarly sources. See WP:WEIGHT and remember that ...in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors.. <<-armon->> (talk) 10:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
This is getting silly. First of all, the article was not just published in il manifesto. Second, you've conceded Ali's academic credentials; you cannot use this article to editorialize against Ali's qualifications (which is what you seem to be implying we should do). Third, if you have a suggestion that will improve what you see as the UNDUE issue, let us know what it is. Deleting the material is not an acceptable suggestion, nor is it consistent with your own argument here. Fourth, the Ali stuff already was in the section about the Left; so I'm not sure what your complaint is anymore. csloat (talk) 16:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
This is a current cartoon from Il Manifesto [10]. On the top it says "three hours" and the death image (obviously the Zionist Entity) is saying "children's recreation". They have a right to their views, but there is no effort at balance in Il Manifesto, which holds the same views as l'Unità, which was founded and owned by the now defunct PCI (Partito Comunista Italiano). Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I translated what death (the Zionist Entity) is saying too literally. It should be: "children's recess."
It is not in dispute that Il Manifesto is a left wing newspaper, with communist links. I am quite sure as well that - like most other papers - it has been criticised for this or that aspect of its reporting and editorial stance. However it is not, for example, the equivalent of Socialist Worker in the UK, which is mostly sold by a few party activists on the pavement. If you walk into an Italian newsagent, you will find it on the stands with all the other mainstream newspapers. It is quite simply not a "fringe" or "extremist" source, any more than the Moonie-owned Washington Times is, or any of the media outlets owned by Rupert Murdoch or Silvio Berlusconi are, so let's leave that to one side. Furthermore WP:RS more broadly is not about alleged bias or POV in individual sources, it is about ensuring that material here is sourced to places where we can be confident there is fact-checking, editorial oversight etc - ie that if newspaper or website A says that incident B happened, or that individual C said D or wrote op-ed E, we can assume this to be an accurate representation of those facts and accurate reportage of that opinion or comment. In this case this hurdle is clearly satisfied. We know we have reliable reporting of what Tariq Ali has said. This constant attempt by editors to strike out perfectly well reported material on the basis that "we can't use The Guardian", "we can't use CNN" etc (and I have seen both of these specific examples in my time) because they are "anti-Israel" or "left-wing" is really tiresome and is totally against every policy or guideline here.
As is now admitted, what is really at stake here of course is WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV - ie is what he said worth including on this page? Does it add to the content, and to the balance of discussion about this (controversial) topic? Does it explain some of the positions involved here, with the views of someone who is notable in terms of the issues being discussed? I say it does, especially since thanks to your own research we now know that he wrote these comments rebutting the concept of "new antisemitism" in a newspaper which appears to have been accused of that very same thing. So does consensus here, by 12-2 or thereabouts. This horse has long since died and gone to the great glue factory in the sky. Please stop flogging it. --Nickhh (talk) 14:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Sure Il Manifesto and l'Unità are sold on news stands in Italy. The New York Post is sold on news stands in the United States, but I suspect there would be objections to using it as a source in this article because of quality issues and balance issues. The problema is that the ownership of Il Manifesto and l'Unità is political, and that obviously makes what they chose to publish unbalanced political propaganda. Capice? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I also want to add that neither Il Manifesto, or l'Unità, would ever hire a reporter, or publish a commentary by any writer, who is not known to have communist affiliations. Not even the NY Post would impose such a biased political standard. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the New York Post is often used on Wikipedia. If you have "quality" concerns about il manifesto, state them. The claim that the "ownership is political" and that "obviously makes what they chose to publish unbalanced political propaganda" does not follow. The ownership of Fox is political, but not all they publish is "political propaganda," and either way it's still a RS. csloat (talk) 16:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. I tried to explain the pretty simple distinction between a media source having a political viewpoint or even bias (as all of them pretty much do, right to left through centre), and whether they can count as an reliable source of record for the facts and comment they do report, per WP policy (and per common sense). But as ever the point is ignored in its entirety, and the fundamental error I am trying to address is simply repeated instead. And please stop signing off with not-especially-threatening "Capice?", especially when it is clear that you are the one having trouble understanding things. --Nickhh (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Because that article says nothing about Tariq Ali. There's a link from there to Norman Finkelstein's site, which we could use if you think the article needs more information from Finkelstein, but I suspect you already know that. Cheers, csloat (talk) 16:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I find <<armon>>'s suggestion, at the top of this page, unconstructive, however well-intended. Her argument is that the two sources violate Wikipedia policy. I do not agree. She links to the paragraph on Questionable Sources. Well, let's look at the policy: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking." Now, how do we apply this policy? Reasonably. The only facts at issue are, "did Tariq Ali actually say those things?" So far, no one has questioned the facts. No one questions that Ali wrote these things. If this fact is not at issue, QS is irrelevant, period. I also see people scrambling to find radical sources they approve of or find acceptable. Folks, this is a blatant violation of the spirit of NPOV. The whole point of NPOV is it forces us to include views we do not approve of or find acceptable. It seems to me that we just have one very vocal user, and a few others who either sympathize or wish to find a compromise, who simply want to exclude Tariq Ali's views from the article. That is the bottom line and no amount of polemic is going to obscure this. And now we have a violation of the letter of NPOV, the one policy that is non-negotiable. Ali is a very prominent, notable and significant public intellectual and commentator on Middle East affairs, including Israel/Palestine. You can despise his views while acknowledging this fact. There are simply no grounds for excluding his views. Provide an accurate description of his credentials and background, and then provide his view. Are there other views that diverge from his? Fine, add them too, but do not exclude his. The sources are verifiable, which is all our policy demands. What is crucial is not how notable the source is (as long as it is verifiable), what is important is that the view is notable. Let's stop this silly endless haggling over this issue. And no article should be hostage to one user - when one user refuses to accept the views of others, that user is perilously close to violating WP:POINT. Slrubenstein | Talk22:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I think this is already covered per the discussion in the above section #Edit war. I've discussed things with Juliancolton, and will go ahead and lift protection. --Elonka20:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Octopus images
Before these images are restored again, perhaps someone could answer the following questions:
Is there any source linking these images other than Wikipedia?
Is there any reliable source that references these images in relation to the concept of "new antisemitism"? The images are clearly anti-Semitic, but that's not the criterion for inclusion in this article.
Given that no-one raised objections for three months after the images were deleted, can it honestly be said that there is a consensus for inclusion?
would these be better? note the one of "peace activist Wendy Campbell" answering a reporters questions. The IHR is the Institute for Historical Review, the principle body of holocaust denial in the USA. At best only one image should be shown from the demo in san-francisco
It's true that we don't know anything about this boy or whether he or his family would want to have his picture on Wikipedia. Mackan79 (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. Even the captions are slander. I've notified an admin, please do the same if you know one that specialises in images. ʄ!•¿talk?22:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Not only that, it's just an awful photo. Crappy lighting, you can barely read the sign and you can barely see what's going on. Plus, it's just a kid in a car, and there's nothing showing that it was taken at any kind of rally whatsoever. The file that it's connected to is another image of people in a car; you can't read the sign, and there are no protesters anywhere near the car. Who are these people? Nobody knows; these photos are borderline stalking, and they certainly don't do anything to help this article. csloat (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
The photo is very good one. One could see the sign, but cannot see the face. Boy's privacy is protected. Besides I asked his mom, if I may take a picture, she said "yes" and told the boy to hold the sign higher.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Please provide a link to the signed contract you have with the mother for starters; even after that, I don't see how this photo is usable. I've reported it on files for deletion but I'm not sure if I've done that correctly since you uploaded it to the commons; hopefully an admin will step in to help out. csloat (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
It will not be deleted. Trust me on this. There are thousands of the images from all kind of demonstrations with the people faces clearly seen.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
"All kinds of demonstrations"? This is a photo of a kid in a car. There's no demonstration or anything. It's also just a terrible photograph; if you want to showcase your amateur skills that's wonderful but please use a private website rather than an encyclopedia page to do so. Have you heard of flickr.com? They may have what you seek there. csloat (talk) 01:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC) Also, what specifically makes this image an illustration of "new antisemitism"? csloat (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
please look in the right hand corner to see the demonstration, the car and the kid with the sign together. So you agree that this is antisemitism you only do not agree that it is new antisemitism? Well, the image was taken 1/10/2009. Is it new enough for you? May I please ask you to stop discuss my photography skills? You simply look laughable. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I can't see what value the image adds to the article. Does it explain the concept of new antisemitism in a way that the other images don't? I don't think it's necessary. And I don't think we want to start an edit war or another RfC over it. — Malik Shabazz (talk·contribs) 03:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure you read my comment.So here it is one more time: the image shows how easy it is to go from anti Israel signs to anti-semetic signs, and second it is showing how parents poison kids with hate lies from the early age.It is how the image adds value to the article.Thank you--Mbz1 (talk) 04:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Where in the article does it say that "new antisemitism" is about "easy" antisemitism or that it's about "parents poisoning kids"?? What does this image show that isn't covered by other images? And how does it help Wikipedia to have an image you can barely see anything in? Also, there is no evidence in the image presented that this is at any protest. Your assertion that another image is from the same place is not helpful as the other image isn't being introduced to the article. Finally, I missed where you gave us the link to the contract you have with the mother of the kid. Can you resend that link? Thanks! csloat (talk) 04:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I read your comment. It isn't clear what your comment has to do with the subject of this article, "new antisemitism". How does the picture "show how easy it is to go from anti Israel signs to anti-semetic [sic] signs"? It only shows a single sign. And, as csloat asked, what does "new antisemitism" have to do with "parents poisoning kids with hate lies from the early age [sic]"? — Malik Shabazz (talk·contribs) 04:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Please see the other version of the image at this very page. You see the anti Israel demonstration in the upper right corner. The car with the boy is a part of this demonstration. I took the image few days ago. Is old or new antisemetism? I'm saying that anti Israel demonstration often become anti Jews demonstration. There should be a pargraph in the article about this, not only one image. Would you rather have this image in the article (the image was not taken or uploaded by me) --Mbz1 (talk) 05:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
You're ignoring the question I asked: What do any of these pictures add to the article that the current pictures don't show concerning "new antisemitism"? — Malik Shabazz (talk·contribs) 05:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree but I don't know how to do that. I tried to do it on Wikipedia but it was the wrong forum; plus I was viciously attacked by another user for even suggesting that the image didn't belong on Wikipedia. It's really kind of ridiculous how explosive something as silly as removing a barely legible photo of a boy in a car can be. csloat (talk) 02:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I asked you a question a few days ago that you still haven't answered. What does your picture add to the article that the current pictures don't show concerning "new antisemitism"? — Malik Shabazz (talk·contribs) 19:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I answered. you do not want to hear it. The image shows how easy it is to go from anti Israel signs to anti-semetic signs, and second it is showing how parents poison kids with hate lies from the early age.It is how the image adds value to the article and it is why it is new antisemetism. --Mbz1 (talk) 20:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
You have not answered. Can you please indicate where in the article "new antisemitism" is defined as "how easy it is to go" from one sign to another, or about "how parents poison kids"? And, seriously, even if you could, this photo is useless for this page as it is barely legible. We already have a photo showing that there are antisemites at left-wing protests who equate Israel with Nazism. That one is at least tangentially connected to the points made in the article. This one is just a photo of a boy in a car. Seriously, use flickr or something if you just want people to see your photos, or send them to zombietime! According to the link you sent, he posts photos other people send him, so perhaps he will want to use your dark photo of the boy in the car. Cheers, csloat (talk) 20:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
article is too long
I think this article is too long and too much devoted to showboating the opinions of a few academics.
Lord Janner of Braunstone gave evidence regarding antisemitic remarks made to him in Parliament. After the arrest of Saddam Hussein, another peer approached him and said: "We've got rid of Saddam Hussein now. Your lot are next." When asked what she meant by "your lot," she replied: "Yes, you cannot go on killing Palestinians forever, you know." Oona King, former MP for Bethnal Green and Bow, gave evidence that many of her former constituents told her they could not vote for her because she was funded by the Israeli Secret Service.[48]
This article is for discussion of the concept of antisemitism. It is not a list of antisemetic incidents. Reference to members of the British government gives the misleading impression of systemic or institutional antisemitism in the United Kingdom. As this is not proven, the inclusion here is undue weight.
Further, the mean head is "International Perspectives". In the example of UK, the British All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism is relevant - specific isolated incidents of anti-semitism are not. Please see the entries for France, Israel, and the USA - they do not mention incidents of anti-semitism in the government, but rather the political and social enquiries into the matter.
This article contains too much of the he-said, she-said of opinion columns. I have started a section devoted to Research on the new Anti-semitism that has been publishedin peer-reviewed journals.Historicist (talk) 20:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Although the two academic studies referenced under this title are worthy of inclusion, I don't think it's appropriate to portray them as any sort of definitive statement on the subject. "Research in peer-reviewed journals" is clearly an inappropriate title. CJCurrie (talk) 22:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure the articles make some valid points, but that's not the issue here. My point is that it's not appropriate to use these two academic articles as a definitive statement on a subject as complex as "new anti-Semitism". To respond to your second point, I'm certain that these two articles aren't important enough to mention on line 38; if you can think of a better place for the section, please suggest it. CJCurrie (talk) 23:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. The nature of science (and especially social science) is such that no single experiment or observation instantly creates a scientific consensus. Such results should certainly be included, but they should be presented as what they are: points of information, not definitive and unassailable conclusions. --FOo (talk) 16:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
the material consists of two, formal, academic papers that appeared in peer-reviewed journals both addressing the issue of the new antisemitism. Frankly, I am at a loss to understand the Commodore's objection. The material is below.:Historicist (talk) 18:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Please do not restore the material; it does not discuss "the new antisemitism." It discusses antisemitism but nowhere does it specifically discuss the neologism that this Wikipedia article is about. I realize one of the article is quoted as discussing "a new theoretical model of anti-Semitism," but that is distinctly not "new antisemitism"; a quick look at the abstract of that article reveals that the phrase "new theoretical model" is about plain old antisemitism, and that in fact the model is introduced in this study itself, not in the 1960s or whenever this article asserts that "new antisemitism" begins. Saying that these studies are on a topic similar to "new antisemitism" or inferring from their content that they are related to the "new antisemitism" that this article is about is pretty clearly an act of original research. If the studies don't mention "new antisemitism," we cannot claim that they do. csloat (talk) 22:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia: "New antisemitism is the concept that a new form of antisemitism has developed in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, emanating simultaneously from the left, the right, and fundamentalist Islam, and tending to manifest itself as opposition to Zionism and the State of Israel." That is what these two studies are about. There is nothing magical about the phrase "New AntiSemitism." The keys, according to t Wikipedia article, are that a) it is a contemporary phenomenon b) it manifests itself as opposition to Isrel and Zionism. The 2009 study defines its topic this way: "Anti-Semitism is resurgent throughout much of the world. A new theoretical model of anti-Semitism is presented and tested in 3 experiments. The model proposes that mortality salience increases anti-Semitism and that anti-Semitism often manifests as hostility toward Israel." The 2006 study begins with this: "In the discourse surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, extreme criticisms of Israel (e.g., Israel is an apartheidstate,theIsraelDefenseForcesdeliberatelytargetPalestiniancivilians),coupled with extreme policy proposals (e.g., boycott of Israeli academics and institutions, divest from companies doing business with Israel), have sparked counterclaims that such criticisms are anti-Semitic (for only Israel is singled out)." Clearly they are talking aobut the phenomenon that Wikipedia chooses to name as "New Anti-Semitism." A quick read of the articles makes it patent that they discuss the same phenomenon as the Wikipedia article describes.Historicist (talk) 00:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Please see WP:SYN. What you see "clearly" in these articles is not actually written in these articles. The problem is that the very concept of "new antisemitism" is disputed, so bringing in articles that don't even use the phrase and citing them as evidence of "new antisemitism" as a concept with academic standing is a troubling use of original research. csloat (talk) 07:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, csloat has a point, but I think in the end the use is justified here. It's a fine point, if you like, but this article is about the concept, not the term, new antisemitism. And the study in question purports to deal with that concept, as I think Historicist establishes. Imagine, for example, that the study only referenced "Jew hating," and not "antisemitism." It could still have a place in the antisemitism article. IronDuke15:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
But there is no indication that the study actually deals with that concept at all. There is, in fact, substantial disagreement about what that concept even is and whether it exists. There have already been substantial disagreements among Wikipedia editors about whether it is a concept with academic standing of any sort. To include two articles like this under a heading of "academic" sources purports to give scholarly legitimacy to a concept that neither of these scholars ever mention once in their work. Your analogy to "Jew hating" is incomplete -- there is no disagreement about whether "Jew hating" is a form of antisemitism. But there is substantial disagreement about the meaning of "new antisemitism." To include these cites under the "academic" heading is to use them to make an argument that is not made in the citations themselves -- the very essence of what is prohibited under WP:SYN. csloat (talk) 18:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay, but isn't the subject dealt with in the study directly relevant to what some scholars etc. refer to as NAS? IronDuke23:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply, I just noticed this. It is possibly the case but if the authors don't make that connection, Wikipedia should not make it for them. csloat (talk) 01:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Is it possible to include those articles as an argument for a particular definition of anti-semitism, or with some sort of heading like "Connecting Anti-Zionism with Antisemitism?"--Quantum mechanik (talk) 18:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe so -- this sounds like precisely what is prohibited under WP:SYN. If the authors make the connection themselves that is a different story but I do not believe we can make it for them. csloat (talk) 19:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Antisemitism and anti-Israelism
Yesterday we had a fine example of wikipedia no-nothingism. Two well-designed academic studies were published establishing not only that there a link between anti-Semitism and anti-Israel attitudes and activism, (the studies show that people with anti-Israel opinions, people who would never utter an anti-Semitic word and who deny being at all anti-Semitic, harbor deeply anti-Semitic attitudes,) but that anti-Israel rhetoric demonstrably leads to anti-Semitic attitudes and incidents. I attempted to add a sentence, (differently tailored sentences) to four or five articles that contain lengthy sections on the argument over whether there is a link between anti-Semitism and anti-Israel rhetoric. CJCurrie followed me around and removed the sentences from all but one article. I do not know if CJCurrie is such a person, but there are some people who cannot bear to see actual evidence that contradicts their deary-held beliefs. The pity is that quite a few of them edit Wikipedia.Historicist (talk) 14:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
|}
There is no need to attack other editors. Please continue the discussion above with a view towards consensus, rather than towards finding ways to condemn other editors. --FOo (talk) 16:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh I agree too. Now you just need to find studies that actually talk about "new antisemitism." We've already discussed this above -- these are not studies of "new antisemitism" and in fact they don't even mention it. There is also a huge ethical problem with introducing this in a separate section entitled "academic studies" as if these studies backed up the concept of "new antisemitism" when they in fact do not even address the concept. So besides WP:OR there are WP:NPOV and just basic deception issues here. Please do not use Wikipedia as a forum to spread original research or to create misleading impressions of reliable sources. These articles are probably relevant to this article, however. csloat (talk) 19:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Abba Eban’s 1973 identification of ‘the new anti-Semitism’
The cite seemed most relevant, considering the context provided. A more accurate date would be nice; it was an important year. Generally an older ref’d usage of the neologism would seem important, before others started writing about it. Used italics instead of a blockquote. Any problems with it? Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 08:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Is Briain Klug really comparable with Bernard Lewis and Yehuda Bauer?
The article implies parity, each has a photo and appears to have a seciton devoted to their opinions but Klug is just a research fellow while the other two are noted historians, professors and department heads. Finkelstein is well known and this is his territory but Klug doesn't even research this particular field. (BTW Finkelstein is mentioned twice, both in the Klug section and then has his own section). To prove Klug's credentials the fact that he testified to the paliamentary inquiry into antisemitism is mentioned, but the conclusions of that inquiry are given only passing reference and much lower down in the local issues section, depsite the fact that those conclusions have bearing on this issue. Telaviv1 (talk) 13:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
He may not be as well established as some others, but then, a much greater proportion of his work seems to focus on this topic. I believe that is how he is presented here, as a specialist, rather than as an eminent figure in a broader sense. He is a research fellow in philosophy, but most of his work seems to focus on Judaism and antisemitism. He holds a number of other relevant positions. See his faculty page, which notes current research interests as, "Currently working on questions of Jewish identity, race, prejudice and antisemitism,"[13] and also the profile here. Generally speaking I think it's appropriate to have a balance of different types of commentators on a given subject. Mackan79 (talk) 09:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
The graffiti is dubious given that it is in English and not Spanish. This suggests it may have been done in order to get attention in the US and therefore may be an attempt to discredit the government and its supporters.68.171.231.16 (talk) 06:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
In Latin America, the expression "gringos go home" is quite common among radical third-world, marxist and fascist movements. In this case, I took a photo to an antisemitic graffiti, signed by a Venezuelan Communist organization, with the expression "judíos (Jews) go home". There are many antisemitic graffiti in Caracas, most of them painted by pro-Chavist supporters. We have no authority nor evidence to decide if they are "an attempt to discredit the government and its supporters", specially knowing that antisemitism is very common among those ideological groups (whom knows Spanish, I recommend him to visit the Chavist "Aporrea" website), although the government of Hugo Chávez, in public, officially condemn it, saying they are "only anti-zionists".--AndresHerutJaim (talk) 20:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Do we have authority to say that some random graffiti in Venezuela is significant to include in this article? It strikes me as pretty clearly OR. john k (talk) 23:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
What reliable source states that your picture is a symbol of the new antisemitism? Your image is not simply an illustration, but is being used to make an argument that no reliable source is making. This seems pretty clearly to be OR. john k (talk) 01:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
In this article is explained that new antisemitism is characterized by radical left-wing, ultra right-wing and islamist movements. This picture is an antisemitic graffiti, signed by an alleged Venezuelan Communist organization. What's the problem? Why are you trying to hide it?--AndresHerutJaim (talk) 02:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not trying to hide it, I'm just kind of dubious. The rules for original research are a bit lighter for images, but that's so that we can do things like go out and take pictures of landmarks and then include them without people saying that such a picture is original research. Pictures are not excluded from OR entirely, though, and this particular picture seems like a clear case of OR. If I took a picture of, say, the Philadelphia City Hall and put it in the Philadelphia City Hall article as illustrating the topic, that is one thing. Taking a picture of a graffiti you see and say that this exemplifies an abstract topic like "new anti-semitism" seems like it's pretty clearly on a higher level of abstraction, and strikes me as a novel synthesis forbidden under our prohibition of original research. How can we even confirm that this is a real graffiti in Caracas? john k (talk) 04:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
We cannot confirm many pictures that are displayed in Wikipedia articles, but does it mean they should not be used? For example I took this image File:Play fight IMG 3018.JPG in a ZOO, but if I did not say it was a ZOO image, one would have never guessed it was. Many communist organizations and communist leaders were known for their antisemitism, for example sell-hating anti-Semitic Jew Karl Marx and one of the biggest anti-Semites of the entire time Stalin. So there's nothing strange in the discussed image. Please let it stay in the article --Mbz1 (talk) 05:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
For this specific article, it doesn't matter if the picture is in Caracas or Indonesia. Are you agree with me that this is an antisemitic graffiti of an alleged Communist organization?--AndresHerutJaim (talk) 05:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
How about taking this to the WP:ORN and getting some more views about whether it can be used in this article and if so what the caption can say without it being original research ? For what it's worth, I don't see a problem with using it in this article. It's clearly antisemitic, I'm not sure there's anything very "new" about it but I'm not sure that matters very much. It's an illustration of contemporary antisemitic graffiti. It's the caption that seems more problematic, "alleged Communist organization". Who is alleging that ? Apparently us even though anyone could have done it. If the caption just said something simple like the picture just below it, something like "Graffiti in Caracas, 2009" I don't really see a reason to exclude it. Sean.hoyland - talk16:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
"new antisemitism"? Sounds like a made up term, I think the introduction (the first sentences of this article) should add some sources, otherwhise this aricle feel very biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MUCHERS22 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Ok, established amongst who? Scholars etc? Because I think there should atleast be one source, because of the validity, as you mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MUCHERS22 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
At a minimum among people who think that many "far-left" types have gone over the edge into anti-Jewish bigotry, and among those who reject the allegation that many "far-left" types have gone over the edge into anti-Jewish bigotry. The controversy gained a fair amount of prominence with the passage of UNGA Resolution 3379 of 1975 (which for some reason seems to be barely mentioned in the article). AnonMoos (talk) 17:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Well who are those peoples, why arent there a single source? Right now it seems like a made up term to put on 'dissidents. Also the 3379 isnt necessary antisemtic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MUCHERS22 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
There is no source because no source is necessary. Writers on all sides of the debate use the phrase "new antisemitism" (sometimes in quotation marks), but there is no issue regarding the phrase. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk20:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I think he means that no formal academic scholarly studies are needed to establish the notability of a concept which is often referred to in political discussions and arguments which have been covered in numerous media outlets... AnonMoos (talk) 10:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I dont want to come out like a wiseguy or something but is there any sources that could be added? Just want to know how established this "term" is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MUCHERS22 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Dude, the article currently has 60 footnotes, plus numerous "references", plus numerous "further readings". Maybe you could indicate specifically and in detail what is not already covered by the current sourcing apparatus? AnonMoos (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Leads don't need to have references. See WP:LEAD. They summarise the article. The article is referenced, so there is no problem. Have you tried looking for sources yourself, to satisfy your concern? You could start at Google Scholar:[14]. Fences&Windows21:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Arguments against the image
Background: I've removed an image from this article that features the words "Judios go home" along with a hammer and sickle. The picture was apparently taken in Caracas in 2009.
My reasons for reasons for removing the image are as follows:
It's not advisable to load this page up with images that "demonstrate the concept," when the concept itself is disputed.
While the image is unquestionably anti-Semitic, it is also anonymous and fringe. It's not difficult to find obscure whackjobs carrying anti-Semitic signs at public demonstrations pertaining to the Middle East. Demonstrating that these signs represent anything more than the idiocy of their creators is another matter. Btw, we already have one such image in the same section; having two would seem to belabour the point.
This article is not a catalogue of recent or contemporary anti-Semitic graffiti (in fact, it's not even about recent or contemporary anti-Semitism, per se).
The picture is not notable, and the fact that it was apparently taken in Caracas does not make it so. "Engage," the online journal that published it, is not a notable source.
The entire thing seems like a violation of WP:POINT. The person who claims to have taken the picture writes, In this case, I took a photo to an antisemitic graffiti, signed by a Venezuelan Communist organization, with the expression "judíos (Jews) go home". There are many antisemitic graffiti in Caracas, most of them painted by pro-Chavist supporters. We have no authority nor evidence to decide if they are "an attempt to discredit the government and its supporters", specially knowing that antisemitism is very common among those ideological groups (whom knows Spanish, I recommend him to visit the Chavist "Aporrea" website), although the government of Hugo Chávez, in public, officially condemn it, saying they are "only anti-zionists" Leaving aside a possible conflict-of-interest, this statement comes very close to acknowledging a more general political intent for publicizing the image. One of the other editors who favoured retention of the article made reference to the "sell-hating [sic] anti-Semitic Jew Karl Marx" in support of his/her arguments. There is a legitimate debate to be had concerning the relationship between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism in modern Venezuela (and perhaps more could be said about this subject in the article space), but reducing the matter to caricature is inappropriate.
I do not believe there was ever a significant consensus to keep the article. The discussion that took place a few months ago on this front involved only a small number of editors. A third contributor to the debate, john k, never signed off on the image, while the fourth made reference to it as "an illustration of contemporary antisemitic graffiti" (which, as I've said, is not quite relevant to the focus of the article). In any event, the article traffic in June/July seems to have been rather low.
A 2009 study entitled "Modern Anti-Semitism and Anti-Israeli Attitudes", published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology in 2009, tested new theoretical model of anti-Semitism with 3 experiments. The research team's theoretical model proposed that mortality salience (reminding people that they will someday die) increases anti-Semitism and that anti-Semitism is often expressed as anti-Israel attitudes. The first experiment showed that mortality salience led to higher levels of anti-Semitism and lower levels of support for Israel. The study’s methodology was designed to tease out anti-Semitic attitudes that are concealed by polite people . The second experiment showed that mortality salience caused people to perceive Israel as very important, but did not cause them to perceive any other country this way. The third experiment showed that mortality salience led to a desire to punish Israel for human rights violations but not to a desire to punish Russia or India for identical human rights violations. According to the researchers, their results “suggest that Jews constitute a unique cultural threat to many people’s worldviews, that anti-Semitism causes hostility to Israel, and that hostility to Israel may feed back to increase anti-Semitism.” Furthermore, "those claiming that there is no connection between antisemitism and hostility toward Israel are wrong."[2]
A 2006 study in the Journal of Conflict Resolution argued that although almost no respondents in countries of the European Union regarded themselves as antisemitic, antisemitic attitudes correlated with anti-Israel opinions.[3] Looking at populations in 10 European countries, Small and Kaplan surveyed 5,000 respondents, asking them about Israeli actions and classical anti-Semitic stereotypes. "There were questions about whether the IDF purposely targets children, whether Israel poisons the Palestinians' water supply - these sorts of extreme mythologies," Small says. "The people who believed the anti-Israel mythologies also tended to believe that Jews are not honest in business, have dual loyalties, control government and the economy, and the like," Small says. According to this study, anti-Israel respondents were 56% more likely to be anti-Semitic than the average European. "This is extraordinary. It's off the charts." says Small. The study also found that popular levels of both antisemitism and anti-Israel opinion were lower than expected, and did not equate antisemitism with anti-Zionism.[4]
==References}
^Slom, Hans (2000). European Politics Into the Twenty-First Century: Integration and Division. Westport: Praeger. ISBN0275968146.
^ Modern Anti-Semitism and Anti-Israeli Attitudes, Florette Cohen, Department of Psychology, The College of Staten Island, City University New York; Lee Jussim, Department of Psychology,
Rutgers University, New Brunswick; Kent D. Harber, Department of
Psychology, Rutgers University, Newark; Gautam Bhasin, Department of
Counseling, Columbia Teacher’s College, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2009, Vol. 97, No. 2, 290–306 [1]
^Kaplan, E. H., & Small, C. A. (2006). Anti-Israel sentiment predicts anti-Semitism in Europe. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 50, 548–561.
^Yale expert: Not enough known about anti-Semitism, Aug. 8, 2007, Haviv Rettig Gur , THE JERUSALEM POST [2]
This article is about new antisemitism which is not represented by the star of David. If there is no symbol for the phenomenon, none should be used.
I request that the image be removed and a relevant one added instead. Facts are your friends (talk) 18:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Two sections should be consolidated?
This article has two sections that are cover similar material: "Criticism of Israel is not always antisemitism" and "A political ploy to stifle criticism of Israel". Sources such as Brian Klug, Irfan Khawaja, Alexander Cockburn, Michael Lerner and Norman Finkelstein generally talk about both topics (of the two sections). Since, in the sources, the two topics often go together, perhaps it would be better for readers if they were consolidated? Or perhaps two subsections under a single "Objections related to criticism of Israel" section? Or at least placed next to each other in the article? --Noleander (talk) 06:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
In principle, I'm not against consolidation. However, I'll note that the section now titled "Criticism of Israel is not always antisemitism" was until recently called "Opposition to Israel is not necessarily antisemitism," and that Raab and Silverstein were (in the works cited) warning about a tendency to automatically conflate anti-Israel protests with anti-Semitism. They weren't arguing that "criticism of Israel is not always anti-Semitism" (which is a banal observation), but rather that the equation, "anti-Israelism equals anti-Semitism," is too simplistic. This point should be properly conveyed in whatever new section is created. CJCurrie (talk) 06:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the title of that section title could be improved to more precisely reflect the sources. The paraphrase I would use to summarize what the sources are saying is: "the New Anti-Semitism concept may imply that all criticisms of Israel are anti-Semitic in nature, but that is an incorrect inference", but that doesn't work as a section title :-) I'll see if I can think of something. --Noleander (talk) 06:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Norway
Regarding this revert and related edits. It's a non-English source. Would someone be able to provide a translation that confirms that the source is discussing the subject of this article, 'New antisemitism' rather than simply antisemitism ? I ask because the content itself doesn't mention the concept of 'New antisemitism' and relate the antisemitism described to the subject of this article. Obviously it has to be a reliable source that says that this is related to 'New antisemitism' rather than us deciding that it is related or an example of 'New antisemitism'. Sean.hoyland - talk18:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Also, what about the France and U.S. sections? Is someone suggesting that any and all antisemitism that occurs after the year 2000 may be included in this article? That doesnt seem quite right. My suggestion is that material only be included in this article if the source somehow connects it to "new antisemitism", using that phrase. Ideally, a quote should be provided in the footnote that establishes that nexus. Other material (that is not connected to "new antisemitism") should go in the Antisemitism in France etc articles. Thoughts? --Noleander (talk) 18:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Sweden material
Shalalal: Can you verify that your recent material on Sweden fits in this article? Do the sources discuss "New antisemitism"? Or just "antisemitism" in general? If the latter, the material belongs in another article like antisemitism or Antisemitism in Sweden (which you are free to create). If your material is about New Antisemitism, can you provide some quotes from the sources that include that term? Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 23:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
"New antisemitism" is the name of the concept that a new form of antisemitism has developed in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, emanating simultaneously from the left, radical Islam and the right, and tending to manifest itself as opposition to Zionism and the State of Israel."
The swedish material is exacly about the growth of such antisemitism in Sweden. There are no quotes to the word "New Antisemitism" but it covers that phenomenon and therefore i strongly believe that it belongs here.Shalalal (talk) 00:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
What we believe isn't relevant though. The connection to the subject of this article must be made by a reliable source. I would imagine that there are sources out there that discuss antisemitism in Sweden and connect it to the notion of new antisemitism. The connection has to be made by the source rather than by us based on what we believe to be the case. Sean.hoyland - talk07:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Andres: You restored the large section on Sweden. Can you explain why it is related to the topic of "new antisemtism"? I looked thru the material and so no mention of "new antisemitism" at all. If you can find 1 or 2 sources that make the connection (for example the Baum source mentioned immediately above in the Sean Hoyland post), then material from those sources would be appropriate. The deleted material is more appropriate for the article Antisemitism in Sweden (and, in fact, the material is already in there). --Noleander (talk) 22:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Mudar Zahran
Regarding the Soosim spam paragraph quoting Mudar Zahran: As I wrote when I removed it from this article, it isn't clear that "this 'new form of anti-Semitism 2.0'" referred to in the column is the same "new antisemitism" this article is about. The fact that an editor stumbles across something that uses the words "new" and "antisemitism" in close proximity to one another does not mean this article needs to mention it.
The fact that Soosim engaged in canvassing to invite editors to tag-team to keep this spam speaks volumes about it, as it does about Soosim. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk04:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
my dear friend malik - i am personally hurt by you saying these things. c'mon - put your glasses on and see what is there. and if i may: a) the words were not just used in close proximity - they are exactly what it is refering to. did you not read the article itself? or the information added? not sure why you would call it 'spam' - puh-leeze. i expected more from you. b) no canvassing was done. read wp:canvass a bit more: Appropriate = Limited posting AND Neutral AND Nonpartisan AND Open. thanks, ok? c) you keep calling it spam. i see you want to 'paint' me by saying it speaks volumes. well, dear friend and fellow editor malik - your hurtful words speak volumes about you. maybe read this carefully: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks (these lead to blocks - seems silly for you to engage in this) Soosim (talk) 06:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
so, no one else feels that this is a problem? we can go with:
Mudar Zahran, a Palestinian, writing for the Hudson Institute says that this "new form of anti-Semitism 2.0 is well-covered-up, harder to trace and poses a much deeper danger to the modern way of life of the civilized world than the earlier crude form of it, as it slowly and gradually works on delegitimizing Jews to the point where it eventually becomes acceptable to target Jews, first verbally, then physically -- all done in a cosmopolitan style where the anti-Semites are well-groomed speakers and headline writers in jackets and ties; and not just Arab, but American and European, from "sanitized" news coverage of the most bloodthirsty radicals, to charges against Israel in which facts are distorted, selectively omitted or simply untrue."[1]
need to avoid combining two perspectives or splitting one
I combined a comment from Tariq Ali with the section on Finkelstein. Both are claiming that charges of antisemitism are political ploys to avoid criticism of Israel, but Ali's statement was mixed in with a different section. Benwing (talk) 01:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
That's what "working" means: "good enough as the basis for work or argument and likely to be developed or improved later" (Concise Oxford English Dictionary). — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk02:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
We don't know what significance, importance, or meaning the EUMC placed on the term. From the document itself, it appears that by "working" the EUMC meant "a practical guide for identifying incidents, collecting data etc." - in other words, "working" meaning "practical, not theoretical". In any event, without their own explanation of what they meant, speculation is futile. Jayjg (talk)21:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
The last revision needs improvement. It does not distinguish between the working definition, and the supplementary material. Only the text that is in bold italics in the original document is the working definition. If the original text is in bold italics, then it should be in bold italics here. If neccesary an explanation as to why can be added. The reference to the fact that the definition is no longer used should be reinstated. Also the reference to the very important text that states that the examples given 'with regard to the state of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:' should be re instated. These are important qualifiers to the examples of the working definition, as it could apply to criticism of Israel, that should be reinstated. Without this qualifying text it appears that the examples given are definitions of anti semitism. They are not. They are possible examples of anti semitism. Without this qualifying text this point can be missed. The original document should be consulted before any of my revisions are changed. The last revision does not accurately reflect the actual EUMC document. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 20:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I've moved your insertion here to Talk:
The “working definition” was never adopted by the EUMC. The FRA publication on the topic – its Working Paper Anti-Semitism: Summary overview of the situation in the European Union 2001-2009 (April 2010) does not mention the “working definition”. [2]
The whole thing is unsourced/original research. The first claim (that is was never "adopted by the EUMC") is completely unsourced - and why would it have to be "adopted" anyway? Is there a formal "adoption" process for definitions? The second sentence does not appear to have anything to do with the topic of this article; this is made even more clear because it doesn't actually mention the topic of this article. Jayjg (talk)01:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
That document isn't in the FRA's current document list. What is, though, is the FRA's annual report on antisemitism. The latest version is at [15]. The report notes the lack of an agreed definition: "The Agency’s data collection work shows that most Member States do not have official or even unofficial data and statistics on anti-Semitic incidents. Even where data exist they are not comparable, since they are collected using different definitions and methodologies." The report discusses "secondary anti-semitism" and "left anti-Zionism" as possible categories, but the tables are organized by type of act (Violent, speech, internet, etc.)
The report has a relevant paragraph on page 26: "Anti-Semitic activity after 2000 is increasingly attributed to a “new anti-Semitism”, characterised primarily by the vilification of Israel as the “Jewish collective” and perpetrated primarily by members of Europe’s Muslim population, but sometimes also by members of the extreme left. The available research dealing with the perception of Jews within the EU indicates that there is little evidence showing changes in the traditional anti-Semitic stereotypes. However, manifestations of anti-Semitism in politics, media, and everyday life, have indeed changed in recent years, especially since the start of the “al-Aqsa Intifada” in 2000." That directly mentions and defines "new anti-semitism", so that's probably what should go in the article. --John Nagle (talk) 04:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the "FRA current document list" is, but they keep the "Working definition of antisemitism" on their website. Jayjg (talk)21:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Here's the FRA's list of publications.[16]. That draft didn't come out as a FRA publication. There's a reference to it in "Data collection and research activities on racism and xenophobia by the EUMC", though.[17] "In order to facilitate the data collection work of NFPs the EUMC developed, together with the OSCE/ODIHR and Jewish organisations, and on the basis of consultation with experts, a guide to data collection on anti-Semitic incidents. (This followed on from an earlier report in which it had identified the lack of both legal and operational definitions regarding anti-Semitism). The guide includes a proposal for a non-legal working definition to be used at national level by primary data-collecting agencies. Following feedback by the NFPs and other stakeholders the guide, which is considered as ‘work in progress’, will be reviewed."
The data collection referred to results in the annual update to "Anti-Semitism -- Summary overview of the situation in the European Union 2001-2010" [18]. The introduction to that report complains about the lack of a definition agreed upon across the EU: "Even where data exist, they are not comparable, since they are collected using different definitions and methodologies." The report says another study is planned: "In view of the lack of robust and comparable data showing the extent to which Jews in the EU are subject to discrimination, hate crime and hate speech, the FRA decided in 2011 to launch a major survey on the Jewish population in EU Member States." So there's no agreed-on definition for EU purposes.
The FRA is now trying another approach. - they have a much larger effort to look at discrimination in a standardized way, an EU-wide survey of discrimination across all the races and religions of the Union.[19]. That study is based on interviews with questions like "Were you stopped by the police in the last 12 months" and "Did you experience harassment of a serious nature in the last 12 months". They ask everybody the same questions, then correlate with ethnicity and religion. The summary report mentions anti-Semitism only once - it didn't make the top 5 groups discriminated against. ("The highest incidence rates for assault or threat was found for Somali respondents in Finland where 74 incidents of assault or threat for every 100 interviewees were recorded.") This focuses attention on who's getting hit over the head or being denied jobs, rather than struggling with abstract definitions. --John Nagle (talk) 05:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I have no objection to going with the page 26 wording. In fact, taking into account this comment from above,
"The second sentence does not appear to have anything to do with the topic of this article; this is made even more clear because it doesn't actually mention the topic of this article."
On these grounds the whole reference to the EUMC draft working definition should be removed, as it has no direct relevance to claims as to whether or not the 'new antisemitism' actually exists. The EUMC quote is only applicable to anti semitism itself. Your other data on the fact that the EUMC working definition is work in progress could usefully be included in the EUMC working definition section of the anti semitism article. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 17:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Something containing the explicit text above that begins "Anti-Semitic activity after 2000 is increasingly attributed to a “new anti-Semitism”..." --John Nagle (talk) 02:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
So, despite the fact that the EUMC working definition includes all the elements described as "New antisemitism", you'd prefer to remove it? Why not have both? Jayjg (talk)03:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
The EUMC draft Working definition does not contain the words new anti semitism. It therefore does not belong here. The section of the EUMC Working definition that is given here may or may not be part of the Working definition:. It is actually only one of two bulleted lists that are contained in the EUMC document. It does not belong here, and should be removed. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 20:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
The EUMC draft definition has taken on a life of its own, something I only recently discovered. It has its very own lobby, the "European Forum on Antisemitism".[20][21]. This organization, despite the name, bears the logo of the American Jewish Committee and is run out of their Berlin office. On the other side are the UCU (the UK union of university students) which voted against using the draft definition[22]Herald Scotland article (paywall). Google brings up many sites arguing for or against the draft. It's definitely controversial. --John Nagle (talk) 04:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Ref this point 'The list given in the definition lists the same points listed in this article as New Antisemitism'.
The draft Working definition of the EUMC, which is no longer used by the EUMC successor organisation, also lists other manifestations of what could be anti semitism. It does not classify anything as belonging to any class of new anti semitism. Those who believe that there is such a concept of new antisemitism are free to point out that what they claim constitutes the new antisemitism matches what the EUMC said could constitute anti semitism. But because the EUMC have made no reference to new anti semitism, this material belongs under anti semitism, not under new antisemitism. It does not belong here, and should be removed. Can we agree on that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalai lama ding dong (talk • contribs) 11:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I think I see a way out of this. See American_Jewish_Committee#New Anti-Semitism, where the AJC's position in this area is discussed. The AJC is actively promoting the EUMC draft [23], which is consistent with their position. The article already has a section on the AJC's position, and the EUMC draft material can be placed there. The European Union section should be based on the material quoted above from page 26 of the current FRA report. This brings us closer to the sources. --John Nagle (talk) 21:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
It's the EUMC's definition, not the AJC's. Where does the AJC discuss this? Is there a reliable source that indicates a formal organizational link between the AJC and the European Forum on Antisemitism? I'm not referring to renting offices from them or in the same building, but an actual organizational linkage. Jayjg (talk)03:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
The AJC logo appears at the bottom of the web pages of the European Forum on Antisemitism, so we can presume there is a connection. The earliest "about" page for the EFA in the Internet Archive [24] gives more information about who set it up. ("The conference was co-sponsored by the American Jewish Committee Berlin Office/Ramer Center for German-Jewish Relations and the Friedrich Ebert Foundation.") The European Forum on Antisemitism's publications include the AJC's "International Director of Jewish Affairs" testifying before the U.S. Congress promoting this definition. ("This definition is especially noteworthy in that it also describes where animosity toward the State of Israel can become a form of anti-Semitism.")[25]. So there's not much question that there are close ties. It's not clear that the EFA even has organizational existence on its own. Their own "about" page says "The European Forum on Antisemitism is a resource for Jewish community representatives, public opinion leaders, and members of non-governmental organizations dedicated to combating antisemitism." There's no mention of officers, members, meetings, or anything else like that. It may just be a web site run by the AJC's Berlin office. --John Nagle (talk) 05:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Hmm. It describes its creation thus:
The European Forum on Antisemitism (EFA) was founded in Berlin on March 13th, 2008, at a conference of more than 50 Jewish leaders and experts from 15 European countries, the U.S. and Israel. The European Forum on Antisemitism assists Jewish leaders and experts accessing and exchanging relevant information on strategies to combat antisemitism. In addition, the forum promotes public discussion of facets of antisemitism and seeks to heighten public awareness of cases of antisemitism.
There's definitely an AJC connection, though what it is is not clear. In any event, the fact that the EFA support the EUMC working definition does not mean that the EUMC working definition is a product of the EFA. Jayjg (talk)19:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
A bit more about the AJC connection to the EFA is in an AJC staff bio: [26] "Alexander Hasgall is a Swiss historian living in Berlin. ... Back in Europe, he coordinated the "European Forum on Antisemitism“." Other individuals associated with the EFA are Paul Goldenberg ("AJC International Law Enforcement Advisor")[27], Andrew Baker [28] ("AJC Director of International Jewish Affairs"), and Deidre Berger (Director of the AJC/Berlin) [29]. Berger is quoted lobbying the German parliament to use the EUMC draft definition. In the absence of any cited sources to the contrary, it looks like the EFA is an operation of the AJC, with the specific goal of pushing a definition of antisemitism which includes criticism of Israel. --John Nagle (talk) 16:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I suggest that the reference to the draft Working definition: at Fundamental_Rights_Agency#Report: Working Definition of Antisemitism suffers from the same problem as that which was previously at anti-Semitism. I.e it gives undue significance to that part of the Working definition document that refers to Israel. The text that is used at anti Semitism offers a much better precis of what the original actually says. It is given there as:
'In 2005, the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (now Fundamental Rights Agency), then an agency of the European Union, developed a more detailed working definition, which states: "Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities." It adds "such manifestations could also target the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity."
It provides contemporary examples of antisemitism, which include: promoting the harming of Jews in the name of an ideology or religion; promoting negative stereotypes of Jews; holding Jews collectively responsible for the actions of an individual Jewish person or group; denying the Holocaust or accusing Jews or Israel of exaggerating it; and accusing Jews of dual loyalty or a greater allegiance to Israel than their own country.
It also lists ways in which attacking Israel could be antisemitic, e.g. by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavor, or applying double standards by requiring of Israel a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation, or holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the State of Israel.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalai lama ding dong (talk • contribs) 18:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
We can't really handle this with a "see also", since one article discusses it in reference to Fundamental Rights Agency, and this article does so in reference to New Antisemitism. Jayjg (talk)00:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Weighing in a little belatedly. Seems to me that working def is notable and used by plenty of agencies etc, BUT does not deserve an awful lot of words in an article on new antisemitism. The significant fact is the EUMC noting an upswing and attributing it to new a/s whereas content of WD is relevant to antisemitism article but not to this one.BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
