Talk:New antisemitism/Archive 15

This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

→

Organizations that fight anti-Semitism

I guess the question of whether these orgs are relevant depends on whether new antisemitism is one of the forms of antisemitism they challenge. <<-armon->> 22:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Bear in mind that many organizations (and commentators) consider the term "new antisemitism" to be a political epithet rather than a signifier of an actual phenomenon. Retitling the section as "Organizations that fight new anti-Semitism" would only

beg the question

, and would serve no useful purpose.

On a side note, I can't help but notice that most groups mentioned in the "organizations that fight anti-Semitism" list are from one particular side of the "NAS" dispute. This strikes me as ... well ... more than a bit leading. If we're going to have the list, shouldn't we diversify it by adding organizations like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International (or Anti-Racist Action, for that matter)?

In any event, I have no objection to listing the arguments of the ADL, AJC, etc. in the main body of the article. CJCurrie 22:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

HRW and AI (ARA is fringe) have different, broader, mandates so they aren't the same. If the organizations actually involved in fighting antisemitism are all in agreement that NAS exists, that should be telling us something. <<-armon->> 03:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Zombietime image in the lead

For some time now, I've believed that the Zombietime image in the lede is unsuitable for this article. There are several reasons why I've reached this conclusion:

The image is obviously leading, and a clear instance of well-poisoning. The "New antisemitism" article is supposed to provide an overview of the "NAS" concept, not to advocate for its proponents or critics. By including an obviously anti-Semitic image in the lede, we are effectively validating the concept.
The image is not notable. Zombietime's image is of a sign held by single protester at an anti-war rally (an act which was presumably undertaken without the support or encouragement of the rally's organizers). The image has not been not widely publicized outside of Wikipedia, and is not independently notable.
The image represents a fringe minority viewpoint. The poster's reference to "Counterfeit Jews" very likely represents a fringe, far-right and quasi-religious POV -- ie. that modern Jews are impostors who've usurped another group's identity. This view is held in some fringe African-African and British circles, but carries very little weight in the world beyond. It's certainly not a view held by most opponents of the "NAS" concept.
We can do better. This is the most fundamental point: even if other editors don't believe that my previous remarks invalidate the relevance of the Zombietime image, we can surely choose a more representative image for this subject. I don't believe it will be especially difficult to find an image that has been the course of legitimate controversy, and has brought the NAS debates to light in a public forum.

There is, in fact, a specific image that I believe would be more suitable: Dave Brown's 2003 cartoon depicting Ariel Sharon as Goya's "Sharon consuming one of his young" (viewable

here

). This image was the subject of extensive debate on both sides of the "NAS" divide (as so was not leading), won a major international prize (certainly notable) and was featured in a major British newspaper ( not fringe). All told, it would be a much better selection for the lede than the current Zombietime pic.

What do others think? CJCurrie 03:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The Sharon image certainly is notable, not leading, and not fringe, and most importantly it is relevant. However, I believe that the Zimbietime image also meets this criteria, and more so, that is far better illustrates the topic in a clear and simple way. I support retaining the Zombietime image, though the Sharon image could certainly fit elsewhere in the article as another example of new antisemitism. Rudy Breteler (talk) 22:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, the main point of including the Z. image is not that it's either inherently notable or "typical" (whatever "typical" is even really supposed to mean in this context), but rather that it shows the general kind of thing which seems to be openly tolerated at certain allegedly "left-wing" demonstrations, where as long as you avoid certain codewords (such as chanting your love for Adolf Hitler or whatever), you can proclaim almost any bigoted hatred or defamation against Jews and/or Israelis and still be accepted as part of the demonstration. We could explain more or less the same thing in carefully neutralized and quasi-scholarly language, but the image makes this fact crystal-clear in concrete visual form. And the fact that the image does not use pure quasi-leftist rhetoric or symbolism makes it even better for the purposes of this article, since this article is predominantly about a certain observable practical convergence between elements of the far-left, the far-right, and Islamists, who have all found a common interest in Jew-hating. AnonMoos 11:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe you've made an interesting point, though perhaps not the one you had intended. As you've outlined the situation, the poster appears to demonstrate the concept of "new antisemitism", rather than inform viewers on the debates surrounding the term. Given that "NAS" is a disputed concept, I don't believe that our inclusion of such an image in the lede is appropriate (though it may be suitable elsewhere). It's certainly not the optimal choice.

(Btw, there's no evidence that this poster was "tolerated" at the anti-war demonstration; the most likely explanation is that one (1) idiot decided to crash the event, and few people other than Zombietime noticed.) CJCurrie 21:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The placard is very large and very brightly colored (so presumably hard to ignore), and the person holding the placard appears to be surrounded by a closely-packed knot of people (not skulking around the fringes as a lone wolf). If the people who run such demonstrations don't want to be tarred with the brush of the New Antisemitism, then they should be much more vigilant in actively rejecting such expressions of opinion as part of their demonstrations, since currently a significant number of "Jewish-identified Jews" and people inclined to support Israel are convinced that groups such as A.N.S.W.E.R. and the general Berkeley demonstration culture do tolerate (and therefore passively endorse) such bigotry -- whether this is really true or not. Certainly I've never downloaded a single audio or video file from Indymedia, but I saw several years ago how many discussion areas on Indymedia were filled with racist bigotry and hatred. Such self-proclaimed leftist groups leaving matters ambiguous as to what they will tolerate accomplishes nothing other than increasing the degree of political acrimony in the USA, but many of the groups still don't seem to have come down hard against bigotry in this matter (or at least that's the impression which has been created, and which they don't seem to have done much to publicly address). AnonMoos 03:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Completely agree with CJ (as people will expect since this has come up before). Could there be any copyright problems with the Dave Brown cartoon? I got myself into trouble before (and worse still got an independent admin into trouble) for questioning the copyright status of the Zombietime image. Itsmejudith 20:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The Dave Brown cartoon is currently featured on his biography page. I'm not familiar with the copyright situation; perhaps others could review the matter. CJCurrie 21:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The caption reads: "...this placard mixes anti-imperialist, anti-American, anti-capitalist, anti-Zionist and anti-globalization imagery with some classic antisemitic motifs." This is indisputable. The only real, reliably sourced, debate about the "new antisemitism" concept is whether it's "new" or not. The phenomenon itself exists, it's a completely appropriate photo, and the caption doesn't take sides on the issue. I don't see any merit in the objections to it. <<-armon->> 02:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid this isn't correct. No one disputes that anti-Semitism still exists, and I don't believe anyone would dispute the fact that some expressions of anti-Zionism are anti-Semitic. There is, however, a large discussion as to whether "new antisemitism" is a legitimate phenomenon or a mere political epithet. By using this photo, we're effectively utilizing a fringe expression of bigotry to favour one side of the discussion.

(But even you disagree with what I've written, do you honestly believe that Zombietime's picture of one (1) insignificant demonstrator is the best image for the lede?) CJCurrie 03:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes I do. As you said, no (reasonable) person disputes the fact that some expressions of anti-Zionism are antisemitic. The actual debate you're taking about is where the line is drawn. I don't think there's any argument that the placard in question crosses all the reasonable "lines", therefore, it's a good example of what the article is discussing. If the protester is "fringe" -that's good. Hope he is. <<-armon->> 03:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The picture is unquestionably antisemitic, but it doesn't prove the reality of the "new antisemitism" concept. New antisemitism is supposed to outline the discussions around "NAS", as well as explaining the views of proponents and critics -- it isn't supposed to endorse one particular side within the discussion.

Seriously, why wouldn't the "Sharon" image be more suitable? CJCurrie 04:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

If the Z. image is really a picture of a far-right Christian religious kook holding up a bigoted sign as an accepted part of a nominally "left-wing" protest demonstration, then it's a perfect illustration for this article. At a thumbnail resolution, the Dave Brown cartoon mainly looks like a generic editorial cartoon, vaguely similar to numerous others -- the aspect of the cartoon which most steps over the line (the use of the word "kosher") is not visible unless the illustration is displayed at a rather large size. AnonMoos 07:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You hit the nail on the head, AnonMoos: "if the image is really...". Assuming that we are not arguing that Zombietime's website is a

WP:RS then how do we know that this poster was really carried at any demonstration at all? What is there to say that the demonstration at which the poster may have been carried was "left-wing"? Itsmejudith

08:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the only part of it that I was neither accepting nor denying (instead leaving under suspension of judgement) was CJCurrie's apparent claim that the placard reflects Christian identity ideology. If Zombietime were a systematic fabricator in taking demonstration photographs, plenty of people would have had plenty of opportunities to expose him, but that doesn't seem to have happened... AnonMoos 09:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not a question of whether the photo is fabricated, but of whether we have a RS for saying that it was carried on a demonstration. I've looked again at Zombietime's website and his "hall of shame", where this photo appears first. The assemblage of photos there is clearly following an agenda. What I actually find most shocking is his juxtaposition of examples of perfectly legitimate political protest alongside completely illegitimate examples such as this one. NB also that there is no basis for your twice-repeated assertion of this being carried at a "left-wing" demonstration - Zombietime describes it as an "anti-war" demonstration. Unless you want to allege that only people on the left were against the war... Itsmejudith 10:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want to see the photo in its original context, look at the photo page for that particular demonstration -- not the hall of shame overview page. It's nice that you clearly distinguish between what you consider "legitimate" and "illegitimate", but Zombietime's main point in setting up his site was that there seem to be a lot of people out there with much less firm personal boundaries. I assume the demonstration was carried out under the aegis of some such organization as

William E. Borah and Rep. Burton K. Wheeler. Frankly, I consider myself to be at least vaguely left-wing, and one major reason why I haven't attended an anti-war demonstration is that I don't want to affiliate myself with, or endorse, the assholes at A.N.S.W.E.R. AnonMoos

15:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps in the US then an anti-war demo is necessarily left-wing, which does not apply the UK or Europe generally, where a much wider range of public opinion has been against the war. On the general question of boundaries of protest, you will have noticed that Zombietime includes some very different categories: for example, people dressed as terrorists alongside people who are protesting naked, antisemites alongside people who just hate G.W. Bush. Placing these people together as similarly "shameful" is suggesting that we make a moral equivalence between them, and I find that suggestion repugnant. Itsmejudith 20:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

My observation is that moderates don't tend to go to demonstrations. They're busy at work, taking the kids to soccer, etc etc. <<-armon->> 01:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

2 million people demonstrated against the invasion of Iraq in London. For most of them it was their first (or only) demonstration. I'd be interested in your view of whether moderates have time to edit Wikipedia. Itsmejudith 10:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

"For most of them it was their first (or only) demonstration"...unlike the sad gray people who are always there selling copies of Socialist Worker -which proves my point. Anyway, this is going waaay off topic. <<-armon->> 15:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

And rather fewer went on the next demo. In my case it was because, even as an anti-Zionist Jew, I did not like how the anti-Israeli message was delivered and given weight.--Peter cohen 16:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Where does the word "kosher" appear. I've checked the larger image and can't see it.--Peter cohen 16:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right, sorry -- I was influenced by my memory of a case of some other controversial cartoon (where the word "kosher" actually was used) into reading "kosher" into that image. AnonMoos 22:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

There are other (and free) images that also give an overview of the subject. // Liftarn

Note the Jewish religious side-curls in that image. How typical. AnonMoos 08:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Of what?--Tom 17:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

By depicting the person with an Israeli flag shirt as having side-curls, the cartoonist is revealing that either: 1) His real objection is to Jews on the grounds of religion (not to Zionists on the grounds of politics) or 2) He is so utterly and abysmally ignorant of the relevant details of the middle-east situation (such as that no Prime Minister of Israel has ever worn side-curls, and many of those who do wear side-curls are ambivalent or even opposed to Zionism) that he would have done well to avoid sticking his foot into the whole topic. It's unfortunately somewhat typical for "radical" agitprop imagery to insert inappropriate religious symbolism into what are ostensibly supposed to be political posters, cartoons, etc. AnonMoos 18:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explaination. I'll admitt that I for one, would not be able to tell you what level/type of religion "militant settlers" are or what their specific beliefs are. Anyways, --Tom 15:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

My hunch is that your second explanation is spot-on and for that very reason this image works on a number of levels as an illustration of the NAS debate. Itsmejudith 20:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Well it's a bit of self serving apologia from Carlos Latuff. Here's some of his other work: Image:Ariel Sharon by Latuff.jpg I don't think he's the sort of representative the "anti" side of the debate really wants. <<-armon->> 01:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Judith was being charitable when she assumed that he was a moron rather than a bigot

-- AnonMoos 07:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

In any case, as far as the suitability of the shepherd cartoon (why a shepherd?) for this article, probably many people would find it offensive, but as also with the Dave Brown cartoon, the most offensive detail is unfortunately not too visible unless the cartoon is displayed at a fairly large size... AnonMoos 09:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a shepherd because as a reference to The Boy Who Cried Wolf. Feel free to draw your own conclusions. // Liftarn

That is your point of view. I would instead guess that the side curls combined with the rifle and handgun is used to indicate a settler type zionist. You may also notice the abcense of the large, crooked nose that is the hallmark of antisemitic cartoons (and now used in antiarab cartoons as well). // Liftarn

Unfortunately for your interpretation, only a relatively small minority of West-bank settlement-dwellers wear side-curls -- and the majority of Israelis who wear side-curls in fact reside in ultra-Orthodox neighborhoods of west Jerusalem, where they speak Yiddish instead of Hebrew, attend yeshivas, are exempt from general Israeli army service requirements, and are by no means necessarily Zionists (some have pro-Zionist leanings, others are anti-Zionist, and a large number are somewhat ambivalent). However, thanks for the elucidation on the shepherding. AnonMoos 14:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

But there are some obvious examples[1]. Ultra-Orthodox settlers do exist. Settler cummunities are attractive to the ultra-Orthodox as it offers cheap housing, segregated communities, and easy access to Israel. Ultra-Orthodox settlements include Beitar Illit, Modi'in Illit (aka Kiryat Sefer), Tel Zion, Immanuel, Mattityahu, Ma'ale Amos, Nahliel and Asfar. With over 70 000 ultra-Orthodox living in the West Bank (and 70% of the births) it's not that small. It may also be because the ultra-Orthodox are very hawkish in Israeli politics. // Liftarn

You seem to be using a very significantly different definition of the word "Ultra-orthodox" than the one I was using. Side-curls are not too often worn outside of communities where a significant proportion of adult men spend their days studying in traditional Yeshivas. I could believe that many of the Hebron city settlers and the floating population of west bank hilltop outpost kids wear side-curls, but I very much doubt whether most "Yesha Council" types do... Avigdor Lieberman seems to embody everything you most hate and despise, and he doesn't wear side-curls. AnonMoos 10:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Did people have an opinion on the Sharon cartoon linked by CJCurrie? I personally don't know that a picture in the lead is necessary, but this seems better for several reasons (particularly with a caption noting the controversy that surrounded the cartoon). There are a number of issues with the current picture, but one is simply that it's shocking, in a way that doesn't suggest an enyclopedic article. If people are saying the message in the photo is actually the crowd's reaction, also, I don't think that comes across. If we want a picture, I'd think the Sharon cartoon would be much more appropriate. Mackan79 13:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I already discussed some of CJCurrie's objections to the Z. image in detail in the discussion above. I don't actually insist that the image be the first one in the article, just that whatever is first be clear -- and unfortunately, the Dave Brown cartoon looks somewhat like just another generic editorial cartoon (unless you blow it up enough so that the word "kosher" is clearly visible), while the most offensive feature of the shepherd cartoon is again not clear unless the image is displayed at a large size (and might not be considered offensive unless you actually know something about the social meaning of side curls). AnonMoos 14:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Why does the image has to be offensive? The main requirement is that it's informative. // Liftarn

If it's a clear example of the kind of thing that some people consider to be the New Antisemitism, then it's probably going to offend somebody, just by the nature of the subject. AnonMoos 14:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

This is why I think a caption would be important, since this would then explain the basis for the claims of New Antisemitism, as opposed to shocking people with a blatantly and obviously antisemitic picture. The thing is, one key aspect of New Antisemitism is that it is some way indirect, which is another problem with the picture we have. This is why I think the Sharon picture, along with a caption, would be more informative. It's also possible any picture in the lead is going to make too strong a statement about what "New Antisemitism" is about, in which case we may be better without one. With a good caption, though, I think the Sharon cartoon could be a plus. Mackan79 17:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Well-considered public pronouncements by prominent personalities are often "subtle", but one of the allegations connected with the whole "New Antisemism" thing is that some of what is done behind the scenes and/or by less well-known people can be startlingly unsubtle. AnonMoos 18:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't really justify the ZT image either, though, does it? If I were characterizing this concept, one way would be "old wine; new bottles." That's not necessarily subtle, but if you still have the old bottle, then I think it doesn't qualify. There is also an element to the concept of antisemitism on the left; however to pick such a shocking image, with no notability on its own, over other options is what I think creates the issue. Mackan79 21:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the Sharon collage is not related to the concept of NAS while the Cry Wolf cartoon is. But, then there is no need to have an image just to spice up the article. It has to be relevant as well. // Liftarn

Actually, Mackan79 was referring to the Dave Brown cartoon, not to Latuff's Goebbels-esque vomitation. AnonMoos 14:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean the collage, but the one linked by CJCurrie here. Here's a search on the controversy;[2] there was quite a bit about it at the time. Mackan79 14:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

If we want informative, the ZT image illustrates the convergence of various "streams" of antisemitism in a way which perfectly illustrates the concept -which should be the point of a lead illustration. As for the Brown cartoon, it's ridiculous to suggest that picture of a man devouring a baby is "less shocking" or "spicy".

BTW CJC's

WP:OR regarding the ZT photo is completely irrelevant and most probably wrong. For example, "Counterfeit Jews" -the most likely explanation is the claim that Jews (esp European Jews) are actually Khazars and have no claim to Palestine. This is very common in "anti-Zionist" circles. <<-armon->>

16:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

a) the image is unfree (and from a very biased source), b) that's OR. // Liftarn

Are you accusing Zombietime of faking the photo? AnonMoos 18:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not from a reliable source, but a very biased source. // Liftarn

Whatever -- No one has ever produced the slightest evidence that Zombietime doesn't do exactly the things which he claims that he does, viz. wander around at demonstrations, parades, and rallies associated with the general quasi-"leftish" culture of the Northern California bay area, and take photos of what goes on at the events, or in the immediate vicinity of the events. From all evidence, Zombietime's photos are more "reliable" than the Adnan Hajj photographs published by Reuters. AnonMoos 22:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, we don't have to prove a negative. It is the ones that want the image included that have to prove that a) the image isn't fake, staged or missinterpreted and b) that it is an example of NAS. And use reliable sources for that. // Liftarn

You're rather missing the point, which is that there are a lot of bloggers out there who would enjoy discrediting Zombietime, (i.e. doing a "Dan Rather" on him) -- but none seems to have successfully done this. AnonMoos 17:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

That is no evidence that "Zombietime" is a reliable source. Sounds a bit like a Russell's teapot argument. // Liftarn

OK, starting over here. First, I'm not at all convinced that the poster displayed is anti-semitic or has anything at all to say about Jews specifically. Yes, it contains Israeli flag imagery (as well as Nazi German flag imagery - is it anti-Germanic?) and it advances a theory that United States foreign policy is greatly distorted by the Israel lobby (a view which I don't share, but which is very common across the political spectrum). One could certainly draw anti-semitic inferences of Jewish world control from it. I would personally never display such a poster, for that reason. But it's another thing to attribute "classic anti-semitic motifs" to it. Actually, that's an odd turn of phrase. What is an "anti-semitic motif"? We couldn't get away with saying just "poster is anti-semitism" outright, but I think that "motif" is a vague weasel word designed to get around this.

Anyway, the real issue, per CJC, is the selection of an image designed to shout "AHA! Here it is, the New Anti-Semitism!" when the very existence of "new antisemitism" is very much in dispute. I don't know how copyright works here, but ideally I'd like to see the poster, the above cartoon of an Israeli settler, and maybe Abe Foxman and Norm Finklestein to boot. Eleland 23:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

How can a placard which shows two skullcapped Jews directly associated with a Satan-with-Swastika not be antisemitic??? 02:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnonMoos (talk • contribs)

Good question. As for "what is an anti-semitic motif"? Take a look at this >>

-and note the similarities. Also compare it to the other illustrations in the article. Motif has a specific meaning, and I don't see how it's weaselly at all. If we just said "this is antisemitic" there'd be complaints of POV. What we can say, because it's blindingly obvious, is that it features antisemitic motifs. <<-armon->> 11:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The question is, do you have a

WP:RS for your claim? // Liftarn

Is that a serious objection? <<-armon->> 11:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if you don't have a

original research. // Liftarn

Note the cites. This is not a serious objection. <<-armon->> 09:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's rabidly antisemitic. The question is whether it illustrates "new antisemitism". Itsmejudith 11:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

"Motif" has a specific meaning and labelling a drawing "capitalist whiteman" is not a motif of the anti-capitalist movement any more than it is a motif of the anti-racist movement. I'm not going to waste everyone's time by altering the caption to include "anti-racist motifs" but logically we might as well. Pictures of dollars do not an anticapitalist make either. The author of this appalling image has really succeeded hasn't he, in getting us all running around la-la-land wondering exactly what he was about. Itsmejudith 15:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Not really. It's abundantly clear what the protester is on about. The problem is that the editors who would like to believe the the phenomena doesn't exist, would rather not have this clear example of it. <<-armon->> 09:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Please don't attribute views to editors but find some substantive reasons why the image should be included. Itsmejudith 11:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Because its a good visual example of what the article is about. I'm not attributing any views which weren't stated explicitly. See the beginning of this discussion. <<-armon->> 14:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for that claim? // Liftarn

Free replacement that illustrates the subject.

) 05:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

First, what is done on other pages is not what should guide us here. However, to address your analogy head on, there is a fundamental difference. As stated by AnonMoos in the RfC, this picture is being used as a "useful example" of left-wing tolerance for antisemitism. This is an "exceptional claim" as defined by WP:verifiability:

Including exceptional claims in Wikipedia requires locating the best available sources supporting such claims, but that alone is not enough: if and only if these sources are reliable should you include the material.[emphasis from source]

In comparison, a picture of Green Party members illustrating their support for a treaty is neither controversial nor exceptional. That makes all the difference in the world. For the record, I'm not "still" making this assertion but I'm a disinterested editor invited here to provide my comments. ∴ Therefore | talk 06:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The "exceptional claim" you refer to isn't in the article, it's someone's opinion on a talk page. It is therefore a moot point. <<-armon->> (talk) 02:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Is the Zombietime photo appropriate for this article?

Agreed not appropriate This is not a
lede where its sensationalism will only serve to discredit the integrity of the article. ∴ Therefore | talk
07:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's get the WP:V objection out of the way. The WP:V policy doesn't apply to images on WP, otherwise it would be almost impossible to illustrate any article because every image donated by an anon wikipedian "fails" WP:V. The image of a Monarch butterfly I uploaded wasn't vetted by an entomologist in order to verify that it was indeed one. <<-armon->> (talk) 06:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that a photograph of a Monarch butterfly is controversial? Or are you saying this photograph is innocuous? I would dispute either assertion and, therefore, don't see the analogy. On the other hand, if your picture had hundreds of butterflies purported to show that the Monarch is not threatened or had three heads, verification would, in fact, be required. ∴ Therefore | talk 07:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying that if someone wants to object to the photo, they have to do it on grounds other than

WP:V because that policy simply doesn't apply. <<-armon->> (talk

) 21:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why you keep saying this.

WP:V

begins –

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.

How are you concluding that "any material" in the above doesn't include images and image-captions? The legitimacy and appropriateness of the Zombietime material has been challenged on many grounds. Presumably you're zeroing in on the

guidelines on the pertinence and encyclopedicity of images in Wikipedia.--G-Dett (talk

) 22:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The

guidelines on the pertinence and encyclopedicity of images in Wikipedia, but that's a different issue. <<-armon->> (talk

) 01:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia convention and

WP:V. This supposed problem of "squaring" image guidelines with core content policies is an imaginary one.--G-Dett (talk

) 17:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely anything can be "challenged" if there are editors willing to

WP:WL. <<-armon->> (talk

) 21:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Armon, if

Zionist attitudes toward the Palestinian Arabs, what policy (if any) would you cite to support its removal?--G-Dett (talk

) 22:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not the same thing, you're assuming I would object to it, and answering your question is a bad idea per

WP:BEANS anyway. <<-armon->> (talk

) 23:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep image, it illustrates the concept discussed in the article very well. 6SJ7 (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree. It displays traditional anti-Semitism (Jews as devils, a concept dating back over a thousand years) in an article that is supposed to be about a much more subtle and controversial phenomenon, new anti-Semitism (which some reliable sources maintain is simply heated criticism of Israel). *** Crotalus *** 23:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  - Actually, the essence of the idea of a "new antisemitism" is the claim of a certain observed practical convergence of the far-left, the far-right, and Islamists, all finding a convenient common ground in Jew-hating. Multiple incidents of blatant Jew-hating language and/or imagery at left-wing-sponsored or predominantly left-wing events have been reported in multiple sources (including the "mainstream media"). So a poster incorporating traditional anti-Semitic motifs present at a left-wing political event could be suitable as an illustration here for precisely and exactly that reason... AnonMoos (talk) 01:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

From what I can tell this article describes anti-semitism in the 21st century. Providing the photo was taken in the 21st century I believe we should keep it. However this photo shouldn't be used in an article about a particular group e.g "The Anti-Semitism Party" (fictional, I hope), even if the banner in the photo was held by a member of said party. As one person's banner/view does not reflect the view of an entire group, or that this link cannot be proven. Also please don't respond to this opinion, I make a point of not watching or checking back on RFC's in order to avoid wikistress. Ryan4314 (talk) 20:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep image Ryan's point is very persuasive. It is slightly bizarre that we cannot use an new antisemitic image (nobody disputes this to illustrate an article on new antisemitism. However one defines the term, this image is certainly a very good emblem. Lobojo (talk) 20:46, 1
- I dispute that this image is an example of new anti-Semitism. It is grossly anti-Semitic in the traditional sense. The reference to "counterfeit Jews" appears to be an allusion to the theology of
  Dave Brown's cartoon parody of a Goya painting, which was hotly disputed in the mainstream press, and which there was legitimate dispute over whether it constituted anti-Semitism or not (thus making it an example of the "new anti-Semitism" concept). Another possibility would be the cartoons of Carlos Latuff, which are strongly anti-Israel and some argue cross the line into anti-Semitism. These have the added advantage of being under a free license. *** Crotalus ***
  23:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  - Err, Christian Identity is a whites-only movement, the artist is African-American. The fact that the devil-figure in the middle has the words "Capitalist White Man" written on his right shoulder should have been a clue. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment I dispute that this should be used in the article. The source is not reliable nor is there any verification of authenticity (e.g., Photoshop). Even granting its authenticity, it adds no value to the article; it is the equivalent of finding a racist blog comment posted by some crank and concluding this reflects the views of the blog. To infer that this one placard represents the views of, for instance, that anti-war rally or indicative of a leftist antisemitism is not valid and is therefore used as misleading propaganda. Some editors, in their personal opinion, believe that it is appropriate, but why are they ignoring the policy of "
reliable sources are required to determine notability. Inclusion of this photograph violates the three core content policies of Wikipedia. Instead of voicing your opinions (an RfC isn't a vote; it is a request for outside editors' comments) address why these core policies are not relevant in this case? ∴ Therefore | talk
22:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No one has claimed that this one poster is "typical of" posters displayed at that particular anti-war rally, or that the sentiments expressed on it are "representative" of the sentiments of people who attended the rally. That is not the issue, and that never was the issue. The issue is that there are multiple reports in multiple sources of incidents at left-wing-sponsored or predominantly left-wing political events where open bigoted anti-Jewish hate language or imagery was at least passively tolerated (and some cases where the event sponsors or organizers seemed to be distinctly less than fastidious with respect to excluding or disassociating themselves from those who openly expressed such bigoted anti-Jewish hate-language or imagery).

If Zombietime were the only one claiming that such things happened, then his/her photographs wouldn't count for that much here. But all Zombietime's photograph is being used for here is as a useful example of what other people than Zombietime (some of them the so-called Reliable Sources) have reported as happening on multiple occasions.

Furthermore, the glaring discrepancy between the large number of people who would like to discredit Zombietime if they could, and the fact that Zombietime has never been shown to have engaged in a photographic falsification, indicates to me that at least as much credence should be placed in Zombietime's photos as in the hypothetical random photo of a tiger which Crotalus Horridus discussed above... AnonMoos (talk) 02:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The image is fine for this topic. It would be better to select an actual image used for advocacy purposes, many such exist. There are copyright challenges in getting an extreme advocacy group to license use. I would prefer an actual image with a link to it's source, but return to: The image is fine for this topic. Raggz (talk) 05:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Support Raggz point. It would be preferable to find an image that's currently in use on the topic. Otherwise, this is a vivid example of the topic; the caption can be modified to suit others' critiques. Cleanemupnowboys (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

These multiple reports (presuming they are from reliable sources and not [say] blogs or personal knowledge) belong as sources in the article. Zombietime, as I outlined above, is not a reliable source. I'd appreciate if you would

tertiary source

that uses this photograph as an example of this phenomena, then it is appropriate.

Secondly, if the intent is to include this picture as a "useful example", then you are making an exceptional claim the use of which

WP:V

prescribes as such:

Including exceptional claims in Wikipedia requires locating the best available sources supporting such claims, but that alone is not enough: if and only if these sources are reliable should you include the material.[emphasis from source]

I support *** Crotalus ***'s statement above. I'm unsure if you have addressed his points.This insidious, dreadful picture harms the article by stunting its credibility. Credibility is gained by the use of verifiable reliable sources and no original research (which this is)

Why did you phrase the core Wikipedia policy as "so-called Reliable Sources"? If you question their value, then the appropriate course of action is to go to the talk page of

WP:RS) or why, in this case, this core policy isn't applicable? Thanks. ∴ Therefore | talk

06:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The constant quoting of

WP:V that discusses images, nor state which sentence in the article this image is supposed to be a source for. That's because neither exists, and the rest is hand-waving and attempts to extend policy into areas which it was never intended to touch. And to put the nail in the coffin, please review Custodiet ipsos custodes statement regarding the speciousness of the "Reliable Source" argument. Jayjg ^(talk)

03:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing that indicates that the Zombietime image is an example of NAS. As such it's just a case or OR. // Liftarn (talk)

"As Wikipedia ages, its editors increasingly write in a bureaucratic patois thick with internal jargon and acronyms, making it difficult to decipher the rationale for their decisions."[14] -- AnonMoos (talk) 11:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The five pillars of Wikipedia are essential. Another one of them is

to act civilly to other editors. Attacking the motives of editors is less effective than addressing their concerns. I recommend we put forward an RfC to get community feedback on whether the core policies are considered "bureaucratic patois" or are essential to the project. Secondly, because it appears that discussion has stopped, I recommend that we take this to arbitration. ∴ Therefore | talk

17:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Liftarn has been informed several times (both here and on Commons) that others find aspects of his chosen debate style to be rather unhelpful, but he refuses to work with his interlocutors to reduce unnecessary frictions, refuses to meet the objections halfway, and in fact refuses to do anything whatsoever. AnonMoos (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

And the personal attacks continue... // Liftarn (talk)

You can continue to use your elliptical-cum-pseudo-Socratic argument style (which contains a high proportion of bureaucratic jargon acronyms and requests for formal "proofs" of things which most other people find to be rather obvious), and other people can continue to find this to be unhelpful and unconstructive, and when other people point out that they find it to be unhelpful and unconstructive, then you can continue to accuse them of "personal attacks". That was what was referred to as "refusing to reduce unnecessary frictions", "refusing to meet objections halfway", and "changing nothing"... AnonMoos (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Strong Keep Firstly, as has been noted, most photos on WP are Original Research, so that argument is a non-starter. Secondly,

IronDuke

19:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: This is a disturbing image, to be sure. I suppose it's one thing that someone might think of making a placard like this, but it's something else that it may have been accepted by others in the demonstration where it was shown. The uncertainty surrounding the intent of the "artist" and the acceptance of the placard in the demonstration is a good indication of the issue of the article, because neither can be objectively verified. This is about a phenomenon that is the subject of intense intellectual debate that ranges from rational analysis to harsh polemics to outright demagoguery. The image serves nicely to show the confluence of the many themes that are raised in the debate as it were. The purpose of a demonstration, after all, is a show of strength, and neither placards nor individuals can have any expectation of privacy when they appear in them. --Leifern (talk) 20:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment: I don't think the "Let's get the WP:V objection out of the way" is appropriate. Of course every image has to come from a reliable source! In theory atleast. In practice there will be unsourced images, just as there is unsourced content. But whenever a controversy erupts, as has happened on this page, WP:V will be the deciding factor. And if a reliable source is not required for an image, can I make one up too?Bless sins (talk) 04:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep, but not in the lede The photo is a very good illustration of what people who assert that "new antisemitism" exists mean when they refer to it. Putting the image in the lede, however, is a clear case of well-poisoning: it claims to demonstrate a phenomenon whose existence is described in the article as a subject of debate. I think the appropriate placement of the photo is in the section of the article that discusses the arguments of those who assert the existence of "new antisemitism". In this regard, Islamophobia may be a good example: maybe there shouldn't be any image in the lede unless we can achieve a broad consensus, but instead include images in appropriate sections that illustrate the arguments in those sections. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 06:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- comment - The reasonings given for rejecting this image from the lede (or entirely) have been rejected themselves by most people who commented, not only here, but also on the image deletion nomination. Pandering to these justification is defeative of the RfC purpose. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  - Response I think that Jaakobou has proven a point, though perhaps not the one he intended. The image deletion nomination process was (I'm choosing my words carefully) not exactly Wikipedia's finest deliberative moment. All of the keep votes in that discussion, bar two, were from contributors who have a known history of intervening on one side of the larger dispute involving "new antisemitism". Many of the "keep" votes in this discussion are from the same participants. I don't believe this is a particularly useful way of measuring community consensus. We already know that a group of editors wants to retain the image in the lede; a vote-stacking exercise at this stage will prove nothing. CJCurrie (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    - And you, CJCurrie, have been prominent on the other side of that "larger dispute". We already know that a group of editors wants to delete the image from the lede, and preferably entirely; a vote-stacking exercise at this stage will prove nothing. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Jay, for confirming my point. It's true that I've become associated with a "larger side" in the nearly two years that I've been active on this page, but this was not the result of any design on my part. I have generally been willing to participate in negotiated compromises over our key disputes ... and I've often run up against a metaphorical brick wall when trying to do so. If I've become associated with a "side", it's because a certain bloc of contributors has too often refused to engage in meaningful debate -- and so has pushed anyone who disagrees with their approach into "the enemy camp". I'm hardly the only person who has found myself in this position.

In any event, it's quite clear that collegiality -- to say nothing of congeniality -- broke down on this page some time ago. Unfortunately, this page has become dominated by two parties: one that is quite well-organized and often works in a coordinated fashion, and another that is far more decentralized and open to divergent approaches.

I'm not pleased with this turn of events. I would much prefer a restoration of collegiality, but I simply don't believe the necessary trust exists on either side at present. Frankly, I'm not certain what turn of events could improve this situation.

But to return to the issue at hand: at the present time, one group favours inclusion of the Zombietime image in the lede, while the other group opposes inclusion of the Zombietime image in the lede. The contributions from neutral and uninvolved editors have more-or-less been a wash, which leaves this as a straightforward confrontation between two sides. In this situation, it doesn't really matter which group is able to command the greater number of votes. The system itself is broken, and I'm rapidly arriving at the conclusion that mediation will be our only way forward (unless some of my opponents change their mind, and conclude that it won't be the end of the world to move the Zombietime image down a grand total of two bloody sections). CJCurrie (talk) 05:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep in lede - quote from the lede: "The concept... purports to be criticism of Israel... is in fact tantamount to demonization... attacks on Jewish symbols and an increased acceptance of antisemitic beliefs." -- i see nothing wrong with this image as a cover image. its a perfect front image for the subject as it's not attributed to any particular hate-artist or government so it holds no mal/intent at someone in particular. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't keep - there is nothing but some editors own opinion that says the image has anything to do with new antisemitism at all. // Liftarn (talk)

Keep, but not in the lede I prefer serious, identifiable sources also for images. Besides, I think it serves the structure of the article better when moved to the convergence part (as proposec by CJ). There is no reason to have a disputed image from a strange, secretive source as a lede in this article. I'm wondering: what would encyclopedia britannica do? What is most fitting for an encyclopedia? I guess, to not use it altogether (there are many images out there) or to give it a less prominent place and even maybe a place where it has some merit. And I do believe it may possible serve to illustrate the left-right convergence. pertn (talk) 10:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep in lede. Obviously relevant and striking image - thus the multiple attempts to get rid of it. It strikes a bit close to home, as a good image should. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought the purpose of a good image was to illustrate an article. I didn't realize that it was also supposed to irk other editors.

— Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Using a good image for this article is invariably going to irk some editors. The mere notion that the "left" is guilty of any sort of racism is huge challenge to their belief system. This is the obvious crux of the matter, and the reason why the more clear an example of antisemitism from the "left" we use, the greater the objections to it. It's the same as censoring the article on religious grounds. <<-armon->> (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It hardly need be said that there's a serious problem with this logic. No one in this dispute would disagree with the assertion that there is anti-Semitism on the Left. What's disputed is (i) that the Left has superseded the Right as the primary source of anti-Semitism, (ii) that left-wing anti-Zionism is inherently anti-Semitic, (iii) that Zombietime's image is indicative of what's usually called "new antisemitism", and (iv) for that matter, that the creator of the image is on the "Left" to begin. CJCurrie (talk) 03:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that anyone of note has claimed that the left is now the "primary source" of antisemitism, and I don't see a claim mentioned in the article that the left is now the "primary source" of antisemitism. That's not really the issue. What is an issue is that in some cases some leftist or quasi-leftist organizations don't seem to be too bothered by cooperating with or implicitly allying themselves with organizations which express open bigoted anti-Jewish sentiments (while they would never do so with organizations which express open bigoted racist or anti-Muslim sentiments), and that at some predominantly left-wing events, there is passive tolerance for participants at the event who express open bigoted anti-Jewish sentiments (while if open bigoted racist sentiments were expressed at such an event, those who did so would probably be quickly hustled out of the area or placed on the oppposite side of a police crowd-control barrier). Such hypocritical discrepancies are one large part of what's called "new antisemitism", and Zombietime's image illustrates it reasonably well. See my original comments of 11:18, 4 September 2007 above. AnonMoos (talk) 07:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

In which case, don't you think the image should be included in the section of this article having to do with Chip Berlet's concerns regarding a left-right convergence? CJCurrie (talk) 22:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Good images invoke an emotional response; that's one of the main things that makes them good. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Good images in encyclopedias shouldn't skew the debate before it begins. CJCurrie (talk) 03:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Dave Brown's cartoon certainly would skew the debate, since it won the "The political cartoon of the year award 2003", and was exonerated by the Press Complaints Commission. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't entirely follow this logic. The 2003 award and the PCC decision did nothing to end the debate over the image -- if anything, they exacerbated it. CJCurrie (talk) 04:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment/Reiteration by CJCurrie

The image should removed. At minimum, it needs to be moved.

I've been active in this discussion for quite some time, and I suspect that my views will already be known to most participants (though for the benefit of newcomers I should indicate that I recently outlined the reasons for opposing Zombietime's image here.) At the risk of incurring more criticism for repetition, I'd like to add a few additional comments now.

(i) The crux of this argument is whether or not Zombietime's image is appropriate for an article on the concept of "new antisemitism". This is an important point, and one which is easily misunderstood. In order for us to assess whether or not Zombietime's image is appropriate, we first need to understand what precisely this article is addressing.

As it happens, there was an extended discussion on this point in early 2006. At the time, one group of editors sought to identity "new antisemitism" as a phenomenon, while another group argued that it was more properly described as a theory. Some who held the latter view also argued that the term was often used merely as an epithet. The matter was taken to [mediation], the result of which was a compromise wherein it was agreed that the term should be described as a concept.

This point cannot be emphasized strongly enough: Wikipedia's article on "new antisemitism" is about a concept, which is to say a framework for understanding and interpreting events. The article is not about the phenomenon of anti-Semitism in the late 20th and early 21st century (the reality of which none would dispute), but rather about a disputed conceptual framework that identifies certain perspectives and activities as anti-Semitic, and argues that the character of anti-Semitism has changed in broad terms during recent years. There are proponents and opponents (and for that matter skeptics) of the concept, and there is copious literature representing all perspectives. I would recommend that readers who are interested in reading a full range of views consult the relevant works by

Walter Lacquer

.

Our responsibility as editors of this encyclopedia is to outline the views of all sides in a balanced, representative and non-sensational manner. Unfortunately, we have not lived up to this standard ... and I would suggest that one major impediment to improving the quality of this article is the fact that some editors have continued to approach "new antisemitism" as though it were an undisputed phenomenon rather than a disputed concept.

As evidence, please consider these recent comments from User:Humus sapiens ([15], [16], [17]) and also User:Lobojo ([18]), wherein opponents of the Zombietime image are written off as "deniers". Neither editor explained precisely what was meant by this term, but I think it's a reasonable bet they were attempting to construe opponents of the "new antisemitism" concept as deniers of anti-Semitism in a more general sense. (I should clarify, in fairness, that both Humus sapiens and Lobojo have demonstrated a willingness to compromise on the particulars of the current discussion ... but this doesn't change the fact that their comments are neither civil nor productive.)

I think it's fairly clear these editors want our article to identify "new antisemitism" as an undisputed phenomenon, notwithstanding past mediation and extensive scholarly literature that asserts views to the contrary. Moreover, I think it's fairly clear that these editors are not alone in holding this view.

I would further posit that this ongoing problem of definition has allowed supporters of the Zombietime image to ignore the most fundamental argument in support of its deletion: the fact that it does not represent the debate over "new antisemitism", but reduces a complicated and contentious issue to a simple caricature. On this regard, I would draw the attention of readers to a point made by User:G-Dett a few days ago:

All NPOV issues aside, I do not think the image is representative of the concept of new antisemitism, period. The theory of new antisemitism alleges something much more subtle and insidious than this. This is like illustrating an article on

structural racism with a placard from a Klan rally saying "Go back to Africa." (Original link: [19]

)

I don't believe this point that been properly addressed (except here by User:Jaakobou, who does not appear to be clear on the terms of discussion).

G-Dett's assertion that the "new antisemitism" concept "alleges something much more subtle and insidious" is entirely accurate ... and it's no less accurate to assert that this concept cannot be proven or disproven by a single image, no matter how sensationalist, loathsome or bigoted that image may be. An instance of a protester displaying an anti-Semitic sign at a predominantly (but not exclusively) left-wing event does not automatically validate the concept of "new antisemitism", any more than an instance of a non-white applicant being passed over for a promotion automatically validates the concept of structural racism. While these concepts may or may not be accurate in their own terms, neither is inherently proven by the evidence in question.

In Zombietime's image, there is absolutely no indication of the debate concerning "new antisemitism", nor even the fact that there is a debate. The image serves to convey only one side of a very contentious dispute, and in the process skews the discussion before it can even get underway. Leaving aside all other considerations, this fact alone should invalidate Zombietime for the lede.

There's much more that I could add here (including that the fact that having this remarkably sensationalized image in our lede effectively reduces Wikipedia to the level of a common tabloid), but I'll defer in the interest of brevity. I have a few other points to address, after all.

(ii) Some contributors to this discussion have described Zombietime as an extremist site; others have argued that the site is a blog (or something similar) with mainstream credibility. This is a secondary issue, but is nonetheless relevant for assessing the general suitability of the image.

My own view is that even a quick perusal of Zombietime's site reveals him to be a rather dodgy and obsessive individual, who isn't above showing completely out-of-context images when it suits his purposes. He's quite obviously the sort of person who lumps anti-war/anti-Bush protesters with real anti-Semites, "9/11 truth" figures and so forth. In other words, he's precisely the sort of person whom we shouldn't be turning to for reliable facts and images, even if there's no evidence that he's ever "faked" a picture.

You needn't take my word for it, though. The following selection of references in the mainstream media seems to portray Zombietime as someone who doesn't quite reach the level of a credible source:

(a)

"Shortly after the winning design was announced, the use of the red crescent drew criticism from some religious groups and Web sites. As noted on the conservative blog Zombietime ( www.zombietime.com ), "The winning design chosen to memorialize the heroes and victims of 9/11's Flight 93 is in the shape of a red crescent that looks--either accidentally or intentionally--remarkably like an Islamic crescent."

When asked about the controversy, Murdoch explained that the term "crescent" should be interpreted on a "universal level" and that it also applies as a technical, not religious, term. The jury report anticipated the possibility for misinterpretation and had recommended that the " 'Crescent' should be referred to as the 'circle' or 'arc' or other words that are not tied to specific religious iconography." While no official project timeline has been established, the goal is to complete the first phase of construction on the memorial for the 10th anniversary of 9/11."

(Architectural Record, 1 October 2005, p. 57)

(b)

In complaints to me, to several reporters, to the managing editor and to the editor of SF Gate, e-mailers asserted that the paper had manipulated a front-page picture of a young San Francisco protester by cropping out radical imagery nearby. By doing so, they said, the paper was propagandizing, part of an effort to falsely portray the demonstration as centrist.

The reaction was prompted by a Web site called "Zombietime," which posted its own picture of the protester. It was a more distant, wide-angle view that showed Palestinian flags, other protesters similarly wearing "terrorist-style bandannas covering their faces," and a woman seeming to direct the group. She was wearing a red T-shirt with a yellow star on the back -- symbol of the flag of Vietnam.

Like a proton in a particle accelerator, the complaint spun quickly around the Internet. Jim Sparkman, who runs the anti- Chronicle Web site ChronWatch, wrote in his blog that "the editors got caught with their hand in the bias cookie jar."

Most of those who wrote to me accepted the Zombietime indictment as prima facie evidence of the paper's guilt. But after reading the arguments and examining the photographs, I thought the argument fell apart.

Set aside the contention that The Chronicle photo was a politically driven effort to distort (which would have involved at least one senior editor, the photo editor, the photographer, the layout desk and probably a handful of other co-conspirators). Consider just this: The allegedly more honest picture shows the protester at a distance, part of a group of similar demonstrators who could be seen, but were little more than part of a crowd. The Chronicle photograph closes in tightly on the teenager, riveting the reader on the bandanna mask, the steely-eyed gaze and the raised, clinched fist -- which the other picture doesn't show at all.

So The Chronicle photo didn't exactly shout "Middle America." It was far more dramatic and displayed the protester in far more detail. If the newspaper was setting out to "de-radicalize" the scene, it did a pretty lame job. If the paper wants to sanitize a protest, it should forget tight shots of radicals in disguise and go for pictures of suburban moms with young children. Now that's centrist.

[...]

Some of the outcry over the photo seemed to result from Zombietime's assertion that the disputed picture ran on the front page of the paper. It didn't. The Page 1 photo was a small shot of a crowd marching from Dolores Park in San Francisco. The protester photo ran on Page 15 next to a 6-column-wide picture of banner- waving marchers.

The picture did run on the SFGate.com home page starting late Saturday night and into early Sunday morning. When the page was updated, the photo was replaced by a shot of Pat Tillman, the former football star who was killed by friendly fire last year in Afghanistan.

Zombietime, informed of the mistaken reference to The Chronicle front page, changed the wording on its site, but didn't acknowledge the error.

(San Francisco Chronicle editorial, 2 November 2005, C5)

(c)

ALEXANDER Downer conceded yesterday he could have been wrong when he claimed the media was duped about an Israeli missile attack on an ambulance in southern Lebanon.

A day after the Foreign Minister was found to have relied on an unsubstantiated internet blog report to attack the media, Mr Downer was conceding the possibility the Red Cross ambulance could have been hit by other weaponry.

"I notice that new claims are being made about, well, there was a drone and something was shot out of the drone, maybe it wasn't a missile," Mr Downer told ABC Radio.

Defence analysts yesterday said Israel was a world leader in drone technology, including drone-borne munitions.

Mr Downer on Monday accused media outlets of failing to check facts when they reported the attack on the ambulance -- an incident he described as having "all the makings of a hoax".

He based his charge on an account in the anonymous blog zombietime.com.

Opposition foreign affairs spokesman Kevin Rudd called on Mr Downer yesterday to make clear his sources.

"In launching an attack like this, Mr Downer's first responsibility is to make absolutely plain who his own sources are," Mr Rudd said.

"Are they (conservative commentator) Andrew Bolt or Zombietime? What are his sources? Are there other sources?

"Alternatively, is Mr Downer relying on incontrovertible intelligence sources available to the Government, in which case he now has a duty to make (them) public."

The Geneva-based International Committee of the Red Cross said there was no evidence to back Mr Downer's blogsite-based assertions.

[...]

When asked by The Australian to clarify claims of its alleged involvement in the attack, Israel's Foreign Ministry yesterday referred this newspaper to the same blogsite.

(The Australian, 13 August 2006, p. 4)

(d)

WHO is the Zombie behind zombietime.com?

He claims to be a "photoblogger" who lives in San Francisco. For fun, he attends protests by people of opposite political inclinations to his own - the extreme left. He turns their placards against them, takes photographs and posts the images on his site.

In this vein, his happy snaps of the 2006 World Naked Bike Ride are well worth a look. But recently he has turned investigator, challenging photo agencies such as Reuters over the alleged manipulation of images and - infamously - arguing that the bombing of an ambulance in Lebanon was a hoax.

Last month, another right-wing blogger ("Blonde Sagacity, the conservative that liberals hate to love"), claimed a rare interview with the Zombie, in which he chatted about his anonymity, his tricks to obtain pictures (sometimes the camera is hidden, sometimes he plays tourist), and his motivations.

"The anti-war movement is really an anti-American movement," he told Blonde.

"The media (try) to demoralise the country by portraying the anti-war movement as reasonable, widespread, and destined for victory. But in fact it is a hate-fuelled fringe movement that only maintains even a hint of credibility due to media misrepresentation. That's something I'm trying to correct."

Just how successful the Zombie has been in spreading the message is not clear. The site technorati.com - which measures the connections and mentions that build credibility in the web - show it as a low-wattage player.

Yesterday it had 955 blog posts, while Melbourne conservative Andrew Bolt had 4260, and the influential US Drudge Report more than 41,000.

(The Age, 2 September 2006, p. 16)

(e)

Initial media reports claimed the Israeli Defence Force targeted the vehicles, firing a missile directly through the roof of one ambulance using the international Red Cross symbol as a target marker. Others blamed Israeli artillery or armed unmanned drones.

An Israeli army spokesman has now gone closer than ever before to admitting responsibility. "We (the IDF) certainly do not target ambulances but in a combat zone, we cannot always co-ordinate their safety," Captain Benjamin Rutland said. "It (the ambulance) could have been struck by our mortar or artillery.

"There was (Israeli army) shelling in the vicinity of the ambulance, but we do not have UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) footage and we don't have access to the ambulance so we cannot tell for sure."

He made the comments during an Israeli army-hosted inspection of the South Lebanon border given to a group of Australian reporters earlier this month.

In August, Mr Downer slammed Australian and international media for not checking facts and branded reports of the alleged attack on the ambulance a hoax. His comments were based on unverified evidence carried on an unattributed right-wing website, Zombietime.com.

(The Australian, 27 December 2006, 6)

See also The "Hoax" That Wasn't, a 2006 report from Human Rights Watch.

To be fair, Zombietime has received some favourable press -- from Fox News, the Jerusalem Post and other right-wing sources. It should be obvious, however, that he's not regarded with any particular respect from the mainstream journalistic community.

(iii) I've noticed something odd that I'd like to have clarified ...

Two supporters of the Zombietime image, including User:Jayjg, have said that the creator of the actual poster in Zombietime's snapshot is a well-known figure who describes his works as anti-Zionist, but not anti-Semitic.

I've done a bit of research, and I've discovered the name of an individual who was identified as the creator of the poster. If this name is accurate, then I think it's fair to say that he's not a well-known figure at all, and is hardly the sort of person we should be promoting here.

I'm curious, however, as to what evidence exists for identifying this person as the poster's creator in the first place? Perhaps someone can inform us. (As a legal precaution, I've decided not to include this person's name in my comments.)

(iv)

Finally, I'd like to draw another point to the attention of readers. This comment as part of an email that I received a short time ago, though I've taken the liberty of adjusting the wording slightly.

One point that's being missed is that if you have a longstanding dispute about a picture, I would think the presumption would be very strong that this might not be the ideal picture for the lede section of an article (ie. if you want a NPOV article, you don't put a picture in the lead that causes this much controversy). Of course that kind of reasoning doesn't work everywhere -- you can't say the existence of a dispute should keep anything out of an article -- but it should certainly mean that a better image could be found for the lede.

I agree, of course, but I suspect it may not matter for some contributors to this discussion. There have been many entirely valid reasons for deleting (or at least moving) the Zombietime image presented in the course of this discussion, but some editors aren't even willing to countenance the possibility that a more suitable image could be found, or that the present image should be moved elsewhere.

According to the view of some editors, the Zombietime image simply MUST be retained in the lede and all objections dismissed out of hand. While I don't wish to caricature all defenders of Zombietime in this manner, I suspect the motivations of at least some of these editors will not be particularly difficult to fathom.

I'm going to implement my suggested compromise again (ie. returning the image to the the "left/right convergence" section, where despite everything the image actually has some relevance to the text), and will strongly recommend that other posters consider accepting it as a means of getting around this impasse. If the "pro-Zombietime" side isn't willing to compromise, I think mediation may be the only solution. CJCurrie (talk) 07:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

CJCurrie, thanks for your long and well-articulated explanation of your view. A couple of comments:

I sort of agree with your definition of what the article should be about, but would like to add that it can be summarized as a set of assertions, the truth and usefulness of which are being disputed. These assertions are supposed to be based in observations of real-life phenomena, rather than a hypothesis that tries to find data points to support it. Of course, there are arguments whether it all adds up, but I don't want anyone to think that it's a theory furtively looking for support - it's intended to be more than that.
Nobody is claiming that we accept Zombietime as a definitive authority on any type of assertion, only that the picture is of what it reports to be and hasn't been doctored. There may be arguments about how big the demonstration was, who else was in it, how prominent this placard was, etc., but nobody has disputed that it's a real photograph of a real event. I submit photographs to the commons all the time, and although I don't take pictures of contentious events, there is an assumption that I'm telling the truth.
The question then is whether this image illustrates such a central point in the article's subject that it's worth keeping. I think it does, because it - better than any other image I've seen, and some clearly have just as strong antisemitic under- and overtones - illustrates the confluence of themes that wittingly or unwittingly gives rise to notion of new antisemitism.
An image like this neither can nor should "prove" one side of the argument or the other, and I don't think this one does. But it does illustrate rather nicely the strength of convictions held against Israel and the many themes that get thrown in. --Leifern (talk) 15:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Leifern: Thank you for your response. I appreciate that you've chosen to interact with some of the points I've raised, rather than engaging in a back-and-forth discussion that's destined to lead nowhere.

While I agree that "new antisemitism" can be described as a set of assertions, I also think it's important for our article to clarify that these are highly contentious assertions not accepted by all participants in the broader debate. We should also note (as indeed we do, in the main body of the article) that some critics of the concept believe that the prevalence of actual anti-Semitism in Western Europe and North America has been overstated in the period since 2000 (witness Norman Finkelstein's remarks concerning "exaggeration and fabrication").

No one disputes that the "NAS-proponents" have used evidence to back up their claims. The problem is that some of this evidence is suspect, and none of it conclusively proves the suitability of the concept.

The fact that the Zombietime image has clear anti-Semitic overtones is, I would suggest, a strong point against its inclusion in the lede of this particular article. The "new antisemitism" concept is disputed -- therefore, whatever image we choose to represent the debate should reflect the dispute. It should not imply that one or the other side is correct. (To your secondary point, I don't believe the fact that no-one has refuted the accuracy of the image to be especially important. An unreliable source is an unreliable source, regardless of how often it happens to subtle across the truth.)

In any event, I don't for a moment believe that leaving the Zombietime image in its current position does anything other than caricature the debate to favour one particular side. I'm prepared to accept a compromise: we can keep the image but move it somewhere else (it doesn't need to be the left/right convergence section), and have no image in the lede. I would again encourage other contributors to reflect on this suggestion, as I'm not certain what other steps short of mediation could be taken to bridge the two sides in this dispute. CJCurrie (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

1) I think you've misunderstood my point. There is a difference between accepting zombietime's interpretation of an event and a photograph that he/she takes. 2) The interesting thing about this whole debate is that we can easily find political caricatures about Israel that are blatantly antisemitic, not the least in Norwegian newspapers. This particular image should cause some concerns but is actually less blatant. Setting aside copyright issues for caricatures, it is far easier to find caricatures that strengthen the so-called "pro-NAS" side than this one, which illustrates the complexity of the issue. In other words, your interpretation of the image shouldn't determine its placement any more than anyone else's. --Leifern (talk) 15:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Response: 1) I have no reason to believe the image is faked, but this is entirely beside the point. The fact that the sign was legitimately held aloft by a single marcher at a single parade isn't enough to justify its position in the lede, especially in light of all the other problems that have been raised, 2) I don't doubt that there are plenty of anti-Semitic images to be found (and I'm familiar with the unpleasantness of the radical right in Norway), but the point is that a brazenly hateful image isn't particularly appropriate for an article on a disputed concept, 3) as I've said before, the article shouldn't favour (or be seen to favour) either side in the controversy. CJCurrie (talk) 04:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding (a) the Red Crescent issue, in fact the design was subsequently changed for just that reason, so zombie couldn't have been that out to lunch. Regarding (b) the San Francisco Chronicle image, zombie responds rather convincingly here: http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_september_24_2005/anatomy_of_a_photograph/ Regarding (c) the Red Cross ambulance incident, the claim of a magical Israeli missile than can strike the center of crosses on ambulances, not blow up, and leave tiny holes in the pavement, it (and HRW's ludicrous defense) have been thoroughly put to shame in multiple places, for example here: http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/fake_but_true_the_age_defends_the_holey_ambulance_hoax/ and by zombie him/herself: http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/hrw/ Regarding (d), Zombie's site is not a blog, so it's not surprising it has fewer "blog posts" than actual blogs. Regarding (e), see (c). Regarding the identity of the poster-maker, if you know who it is, then you also know that a similar image of his raised a huge stink regarding whether or not it was anti-Zionist or anti-Semitic. Finally, your comments regarding the motivations and strength of the arguments of editors you oppose are noted, but so is the source. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Jay, your defense of Zombietime might be more convincing if it wasn't based around evidence from other sites operated by Zombietime. (For the record, I'd already seen those pages. "Rathering convincingly" is, shall we say, rather POV). Regarding your other points, (i) suffice it to say that most sources don't regard HRW's report as "ludicrous", (ii) could you please indulge me, and tell me what the "similar image" was?, (iii) while you're at it, could you explain your apparent reluctance to name the artist on this forum?, (iv)

WP:AGF

doesn't mandate willful blindness to the obvious.

And now that the preliminaries are out of the way, could I please request that you address my primary objection to the image? CJCurrie (talk) 05:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

CJCurrie, if you were only interested in discussing a "primary objection", then why did you make a post that was literally over 3,000 words on the subject? Perhaps in that short novel I missed the primary point, could you re-iterate (in, say, under 100 words) what your "primary objection" is? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It's the section marked as "(i)". Hope that helps. CJCurrie (talk) 04:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You mean that almost 900 word section? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe there's a word limit. Do you plan to respond? CJCurrie (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course you can post as much as you like - the over 3000 word post above being an example - but I think there is a limit to how much you can reasonably expect a reader to wade through, particularly given the large numbers of other posts on the Talk: page. Can you summarize your main point in a concise way, so that we can all be sure exactly what your primary objection is? Then I'll be able to see if it has already been addressed on the page (unfortunately, many of the points being made on the page are merely repetitions of points previously made on this page, and responded to). Jayjg ^(talk) 04:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

There's been lengthy debate on this issue, so I hope I've followed the back-and-forth accurately. The picture concerned is a useful illustration in some ways and I do not agree with CJCurrie that the image constitutes well-poisoning. However, I do agree with his concerns about the picture's notability and context. Without a better sense of how and when that placard was being used and received, something that is hard to get, I feel it is hard to be confident that this picture is an example of New Anti-Semitism rather than any other brand of anti-semitism; and it is hard to say whether that placard is representative of a common view or the product of a lone nutter. So, while I wouldn't object to that picture being used in some contexts (for example, in

Anti-Semitism), I agree that it isn't a good example for the beginning of this article. What would be good is a picture that we know represents a wider view or reached a wider audience (e.g. a cartoon in a significant newspaper) and where we know its ideological background better (e.g. the author/illustrator is identifiable) so that we are confident that it is illustrating the particular form of anti-semitism described in this article. Some here (e.g. Leifern) have explained why they interpret the image as being a particularly good illustration of New Anti-Semitism. I am sympathetic to Leifern's reasoning, but such interpretations seem to me like original research if they lack knowledge of that placard's context and, especially, reliable sources to support those interpretations. If reliable sources about the artist concerned are available, that might change the situation, but I haven't seen such presented. Bondegezou (talk

) 17:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the substance and the spirit of Bondegezou's statement above (though I think the notability/representativeness problems he notes do indeed lead to questions of well-poisoning). I suggest we use an image like this one. Not only are its provenance and notability known quantities, but it touched off discussions of the "new antisemitism," which explicitly cite it. In short, everything about it (including its relevance to the subject) is sourced, and we'd be supplying the reader with a key document in the controversy he's reading about.--G-Dett (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Aside from its other obvious failings, (being a fairly non-compelling image), there are copyright issues with that picture, aren't there? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Non-compelling?! That image gives me the heebie-jeebies. It's a perpetual check against my NAS-skepticism – hitting much "closer to home" (your insinuating phrase) than Zombieman's fever dreams. By the way, I think you're a little confused about the "emotional response" provoked by Zombieman's image. Editors who object to it feel like they're reading a tabloid, and object to editorial sloppiness and special pleading cheapening a project they're involved in.--G-Dett (talk) 04:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of Zombietime

Not sure where or how to insert this in a suitable place above, but I'd like to point out that most of CJCurrie's collected criticisms of Zombietime apply to instances where Zombietime has gone beyond his/her core competence (i.e. speculating about Lebanese ambulances and a newspaper's motives for publishing a cropped version of a photo). In Zombietime's area of core competence (photographing left-wing events in the Bay area), he/she has received rather little criticism without obvious political motivations, and has never been exposed as engaging in falsification. AnonMoos (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be more accurate to say s/he has received rather little attention this area -- with the exception of excerpt (ii) above, which is strongly critical. In any event, (i) I think that general criticisms of Zombietime's credibility and competence are relevant to determining his suitability as a source, (ii) the issue is secondary to begin with. CJCurrie (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Depends what you mean by "attention" -- compared to a broad general-interest site like the Daily Kos or whatever, Zombietime's site is of course puny and insignificant. However, within its own particular chosen niche (one which is highly-relevant to the topic of New antisemitism), Zombietime's site is in fact moderately prominent, and has received a fair amount of attention, relatively speaking. If that weren't true, then there wouldn't be a Wikipedia article on Zombietime at all... AnonMoos (talk) 07:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not at all certain I agree with the latter point ... zombie strikes me as the sort of person who'd likely attract a vanity article, one way or the other. (I'll also note that "within its own particular chosen niche", "in fact moderately prominent" and "fair amount of attention, relatively speaking" aren't exactly the most ringing endorsements). CJCurrie (talk) 06:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The image is what it is, a photo of picket at an anti-war rally. Does anyone seriously think it's been photoshopped? <<-armon->> (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The concern is that an evidentiary assertion relevant to the claims of NAS (that this antisemitic image featured at an antiwar rally in San Francisco in 2003) has no reliable source. From this edit of yours I gather that you understand the problem.--G-Dett (talk) 03:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

There are no serious claims that the poster is anything other than what zombie says it is, a poster held at the antiwar rally in San Francisco in 2003. And I'm sure Armon does indeed understand the problem with continual

disruptive edits. Jayjg ^(talk)

04:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the reference to

WP:POINT. The claims in the image caption are not supported by a reliable source; hence fact tags are appropriate, as will be eventual deletion of the unsourced claims. One can't justify the inclusion of unsourced claims by saying that there are "no serious" counterclaims. That's not how writing from sources works on Wikipedia; you should know that.--G-Dett (talk

) 04:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait, are you saying you seriously question whether or not the placard was carried at the anti-war rally in San Francisco in 2003? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to answer personal questions on my talk page. The suitability of factual claims on Wikipedia is not determined by a given editor's inclination to believe them; it's determined by whether they're sourced and verifiable. Again, you should know these things.--G-Dett (talk) 05:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I ask only because that particular claim is referenced by seven sources - I suspect that would be a level of referencing for an image that is unique in the annals of Wikipedia. Again, you should know that personal comments of the kind of you have made violate

WP:CIVIL; please desist. Jayjg ^(talk)

05:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You and your damn

WP:CIVIL. Sorry to be blunt, but you do seem to be – how to put it? – rather eager with that particular accusation. Now, who are these seven reliable sources? And what do they say about new antisemitism? And why on earth don't you or Armon simply supply these reliable sources instead of edit-warring over fact tags?--G-Dett (talk

) 05:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure you've been reading my posts carefully. The issue in question is whether or not the placard was carried at the anti-war rally in San Francisco in 2003. That is what Liftarn

continually and disruptively tags as unreferenced, in multiple places, despite 7 references confirming it. The references are attached to the image itself, as they have been for days. Jayjg ^(talk)

06:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Of the six (not seven) sources, one is a dead link to a blog, the second is to FrontPageMagazine, and three more are to blogs (one of which merely links to FrontPageMagazine). One of the six is to the Santa Cruz Sentinel, which seems to be a reliable source, so congratulations on the kernel of truth, and my apologies for sweeping it out with the dandruff. I should say though that while sifting through these things I did see another, slightly wider-angle photo, which goes a long way toward convincing me that someone indeed had this sign at said rally.--G-Dett (talk) 07:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe if you had simply clicked on the 7th source (zombietime, no?), footnoted in the caption, you would have seen a wider shot there [20].

IronDuke

07:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Zombietime is not a reliable source, hence this interminable discussion. The wider-angle shot I refer to was sent in to the non-RS blog by a she, apparently, who isn't Zombietime. If it's the same wide-angle shot Zombieguy has, then that rather weakens its corroborative effect. The Front Page thingie says Zombieman wanted to be anonymous for safety reasons. I hope his Zombie house isn't getting egged or TP'd on account of Wikipedia's enthusiastic dissemination of his picture. The perils of fame.--G-Dett (talk) 07:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

zombietime is certainly reliable enough regarding the provenance of the photographs, as are the other sources provided. Frankly, a far higher standard of verification is being demanded here than from essentially every other image on Wikipedia. This is an unacceptable double-standard. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

This is an article on a controversial subject, and the notability, encyclopedicity, and overall relevance of this image are hotly disputed. The double standard here is that an image that clearly lacks consensus (and has been substantively contested on and off for almost the entire life of this article) is retained through brute force of edit-warring, while multiple viable alternatives are suggested and shrugged off. Do you know of any other parallel case where a badly sourced image causing so much controversy was retained in an article? I don't.--G-Dett (talk) 04:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

In my experience almost any article can be "controversial", and the unfortunate behavior of various individuals attempting to overturn the longstanding consensus that the image should go in the lead is not really relevant to the "notability, encyclopedicity, and overall relevance of this image." Also, regarding your statement that the image is "badly sourced", again, I'm not aware of any image that has even two sources attesting to its provenance, much less seven. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Since you mention it, I'm fairly certain that Dave Brown's cartoon was mentioned in more than seven newspapers worldwide. Mind you, I suppose the discussion around that image can't really be compared that generated by the Santa Cruz Sentinel, FrontPageMag, and some blogs. CJCurrie (talk) 04:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue isn't Zombietime

The issue is that there exists a phenomenon described in the article which multiple mainstream reliable sources agree exists and which the image is a good illustration of. Please re-read the article itself. The phenomenon has been describes as, "new antisemitism", "ideological antisemitism", "a brand new bug", or just plain old antisemitism in reaction to the behaviour of "Zionists". It all cases, the image can be read as an example of it, which makes it perfect for the lead. The problem with the image only really arises among WP editors who want to deny that the phenomenon exists. <<-armon->> (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

No, there are issues of authenticity, notability, and most importantly relevance which have been raised in detail and presented cogently. You haven't addressed them but keep waving them off peremptorily, questioning the honesty and integrity and ideological purity of those who raise them. Meanwhile CJ and I have laid out with considerable care and nuance why we don't think a picture (designed by one crank and photographed by another) of Jewish devils gleefully incinerating the globe is a good illustration of what is supposed to be a subtle, insidious form of antisemitism making its way into mainstream leftist discourse. And you won't respond to this critique except by insinuating that we're apologists. It's really insulting.--G-Dett (talk) 23:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

"...what is supposed to be a subtle, insidious form of antisemitism making its way into mainstream leftist discourse" is your definition of NAS. You are redefining it in an attempt to make your arguments stronger. The reliable sources in the article do not describe the phenomenon as "subtle or insidious" among the far left, Islamists, or the far right. It may be more "subtle or insidious" once it hits the relative mainstream, but that's also when it becomes "arguable" for denialists who want to pretend it doesn't exist -or only exists in some abstract way which can never be found. It's also clear that people "draw the line" at different points, which is all the more reason to start with a illustration which is a clear example of the type of antisemitism being discussed, so the reader can read the article and form their own opinions. <<-armon->> (talk) 00:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I would add to this that if the creator of the poster turned out to be, in fact, none other than

IronDuke

01:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That's crazy, Ironduke. First of all, there's a difference between an image that's merely illustrative and one with evidentiary claims – e.g., between a picture of a Monarch butterfly for the article on Monarch butterflies, and a picture allegedly showing hundreds of Monarch butterflies off the coast of Carmel in an article about a controversial theory positing an explosion in the population of Monarch butterflies on the West Coast. Secondly, if the hypothetical article was about an abstract and highly contested theoretical concept, and numerous fellow editors contested whether your drawing aptly illustrated it, it could indeed be removed.--G-Dett (talk) 02:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

"The new anti-Semitism is a much quieter and more insidious force. It comes from a newly-emerging American ideology dictating that anything goes as long as you’re attacking the people in power..." Amanda Zimmerman, The Chronicle, November 8 2004
"Instead of declaring its hatred of Jews openly, this new antisemitism is expressed indirectly through criticism of Israel or even opposition to Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. A particularly meretricious version suggests that opposition to American foreign policy, or even criticism of neoconservatives, is really a coded form of anti-semitism. This accusation isn't confined to the rough and tumble of the post-9/11 transatlantic debate, either. The normally measured Chief Rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, has cited "a leftwing anti-American cognitive elite with strong representation in the European media" as one of the main sources of anti-semitism. He doesn't spell it out, but we all know who he means. The argument is not just that there are individuals who harbour anti-semitic views, but that something in the political culture or ideology of the left predisposes it to anti-semitism. This is said to be the real reason why it criticises Israel." David Clark, The Guardian, Monday March 6, 2006
"I spend much of my time in colleges and universities, where anti-Israel sentiment flourishes and is regarded more or less as a default position. And I have seen (with apologies to Shelley) that when hostility to Israel comes, anti-Semitism is not far behind. But the deeper explanation of my apprehension is generational. One of my closest friends and I agree on almost everything, but we part company on this question. He tells, and believes, the “criticism of Israel is one thing, anti-Semitism another” story. I hear it, but I can’t buy it..." Stanley Fish, The New York Times, March 4 2007
"We're accustomed to associating hatred of Jews with the ridiculed Neanderthal Right of those in sheets and jackboots. But this new venom, at least in its Western form, is mostly a leftwing, and often an academic, enterprise. It's also far more insidious, given the left's moral pretensions and its influence in the prestigious media and universities. We see the unfortunate results in frequent anti-Israeli demonstrations on campuses that conflate Israel with Nazis, while the media have published fraudulent pictures and slanted events in southern Lebanon..." Victor Davis Hanson, Real Clear Politics, September 28 2006
"This is not to deny that contemporary anti-Semitism can take the form of hostility to Zionism and Israel. But how do we tell when it does and when it does not? ... It is often alleged that anti-Semitism is ‘hidden under the mask of anti-Zionism’. Certainly, it can be. But, on the one hand, if anti-Zionism can function as a mask, this implies that, in and of itself, it is not anti-Semitic; a mask that looks like what it is masking is no mask. (That would be like a wolf in wolf’s clothing.) On the other hand, if what is hidden is anti-Semitism, then the figure of ‘the Jew’ is implicit; and there are ways of bringing an implicit subtext to light by calling on evidence from other sources..." Brian Klug, Catalyst, March 16 2006
"...'what is supposed to be a subtle, insidious form of antisemitism making its way into mainstream leftist discourse' is your definition of NAS. You are redefining it in an attempt to make your arguments stronger." Armon, Wikipedia, January 5 2008

I think "my" definition is pretty well documented. At any rate, I agree that we should "start with a illustration which is a clear example of the type of antisemitism being discussed." The best way to do that is to begin with an illustration that is being discussed. See the section on "moving forward" at the bottom of the page.--G-Dett (talk) 02:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

But I wasn't talking about a picture per se, G-Dett. Using your butterfly example, what I'd be adding wouldn't be a picture of Monarch butterflies in Carmel, I'd be drawing a picture of them, a picture meant to illustrate a controversial theory. Perfectly acceptable. I say that this poster, regardless of the intentions of its creator, nicely illustrates NAS, so fits well in the lead. Secondly, I never said that my drawing "could not be removed." Of course it can, that's exactly what we're discussing. (And I don't think this concept could be called abstract--what part of the definition of that word am I missing?)

IronDuke

02:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

If your hypothetical example involves no evidentiary claim, IronDuke, then it isn't parallel to this one and tells us nothing. The reader is informed that this placard was "photographed at an anti-war rally in San Francisco on February 16, 2003" – a meaningful (and not reliable sourced) assertion given that the theory being discussed posits that the "virus" of antisemitism has infected today's antiwar left. That's the evidentiary issue. NAS is an "abstract" concept because it posits that various memes and various ideological agendas have converged to produce a insidious hybrid discourse. That's different from a recognized species of butterfly. No image can self-evidently illustrate such a hybrid hypothetical discourse, and a number of editors (including me) do not believe that this image does illustrate it. Given this situation, it would be better to either (a) use an image that a strong consensus of editors agree aptly illustrates the concept, or (b) use an image that reliable sources have themselves used to illustrate the concept. CJ and I have both suggested images of the second category.--G-Dett (talk) 03:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You have the cart before the horse; there is a longstanding consensus that the image is quite appropriate and belongs at the top of the article; you are trying to establish a new consensus, so far, apparently, without success. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Right now, there is clearly no consensus on whether the image should be included. That doesn't necessarily mean that the status quo stands. A while back, I was involved in a similar controversy about

request for mediation. *** Crotalus ***

03:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

So you figure now that since attempts to get the image deleted have failed, and subsequent attempts to force it out of the lead have failed, and subsequent attempts to win a vote on the Talk: page have failed, mediation is the next step in this venue shopping exercise? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a "vote," it's a discussion. As a long-time Wikipedia user and former arbitrator, you should know this. I'm sure you are also aware of

Mediation is an important step in the dispute resolution process, and there definitely is a serious dispute over the inclusion of this picture. *** Crotalus ***

04:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

There has been literally weeks of discussion regarding the image -

WP:AGF, and the fact that my statement in no way violates it. As for mediation, it would have been a more compelling suggestion had it been made much earlier in the process. Jayjg ^(talk)

04:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) My hypothetical example? I’m confused—I thought I was using your hypothetical example. In any case, I have no problem with noting where the placard was photographed. From the research I’ve done, it looks to be entirely consistent with ANSWER demonstrators’ political philosophies. I disagree that NAS is abstract, despite your liberal use of three-dollar words to describe it. It basically boils down to, “Antisemitism used to take form A from persons B, and now takes a different form, and comes from different people.” As for your point that “No image can self-evidently illustrate such a hybrid hypothetical discourse.” Well, yeah, it can, or at least enough of the key components can be present so as to be understood as representing it. Indeed, if it were not demonstrating exactly what is purported, I think there might be far less resistance to it from certain persons. Actually, why don't I run down just exactly how the poster compares to the concept. From the lead:

“Proponents of the concept argue that

third worldism [said globe comprising mostly developing nations], and demonization [see actual freakin' demon] of Israel

[See “No war for Israel”]… may be linked to antisemitism.”

As I reread that graf, it almost seems as though the creator of the poster had read the article before constructing his message.

IronDuke

06:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I think IronDuke's analysis of the placard is probably right. However, it also seems to me to constitute original research. I would feel happier if we had an image there whose provenance and context was better known and that reliable sources discussed in the context of New Anti-Semitism. Bondegezou (talk) 12:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

But as has been said before here, virtually all user uploaded images are Original Research.

IronDuke

23:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the one proposed as a substitute would not be. Note also that most user-uploaded images self-evidently illustrate the article subject.

verifiability policy, making "any material" an interesting choice of words. Whatever one makes of that assertion, it would be interesting to know if the relevance and suitability of a badly sourced image has ever been as vigorously and consistently contested as this one – and if so, if it remained.--G-Dett (talk

) 00:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd be interested in your reaction to my post above, where I've come to the conclusion that the zombietime image more neatly fits our definition of NAS - graphically illustrates it, in fact - than any other I've seen.

IronDuke

00:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Do I agree that the picture of my beloved Max [21] as capitalist pyromaniac in Nazi pajamas "neatly fits" NAS? No. Here's why I think that it's at best a very crude approximation of the subject. (1) NAS is not notable for claiming that those who believe Jews are gleefully incinerating the globe in search of profits are antisemitic. NAS is notable for positing that such beliefs (in fact all but universally acknowledged to be antisemitic) are only one symptom of a protean "virus," whose other symptoms include perceiving similarities between the realities of the occupation and those of South African apartheid, supporting university divestment from Israel, believing that a binational state is the best solution to the conflict, and so on. (2) NAS posits that virulent antisemitism has sprayed on Penhaligon, gargled Listerine, tucked in its shirt, and gone undercover in elite society. The Zombie image, by contrast, is wallowing in its own feces, grunting and lunging at the viewer like an extra from Deliverance. (3) In NAS, genteel antisemitism masquerades as anti-Zionism and legitimate pro-Palestinianism. In this image, the Palestinians don't even figure, nor really does anti-Zionism; it's just the Protocols all over again. (4) A key component of the NAS thesis is the prevalence of the 'virus' in mainstream and quasi-mainstream discourse. This image can't attest to that, for all that we hope to insinuate with it.

Please note that measured by the criteria above, the New Statesman image does very well indeed.--G-Dett (talk) 01:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, how deftly you side-step my point, G-Dett. Yes, you have raised some other issues in re NAS that the image does not cover. But what of it? Virtually all the major issues, as defined by the lead, are encapsulated in the poster. Look at

IronDuke

02:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

And how deftly you flatter me into thinking I've sidestepped! The "other issues" I've named are those making NAS notable in the first place. And the Delacroix painting is recognized as artistically embodying the spirit of French revolution nationalism; much as the New Statesmen cover is recognized as embodying the subject of this article – with all due adjustments, of course, for differences in scale of historic magnitude and seriousness.--G-Dett (talk) 02:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

But the article isn't about "spirit of French revolution nationalism" or even "French nationalism" but nationalism as a whole. Which leads me back to my point: the picture needn't encompass every aspect of NAS to be a good illustration. As it happens, it includes almost every one mentioned in the lead, which is where it appears.

IronDuke

02:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Nationalism is not a contested theory, so the analogy (illuminating as it may be in some respects) will only take us so far. Our lede talks about a "form of antisemitism emanating simultaneously from (a) the left, (b) the right, and (c) fundamentalist Islam, and tending to manifest itself as (d) opposition to Zionism and (e) the State of Israel. I see (a) and (e) in this image (you're right that a good image needn't encompass every aspect, but I want to register my dissent about this one including "almost every one mentioned in the lead"). The main problem as I see it is that the key notable thing about NAS, the thing that makes it more than a truism (that there are forms of virulent antisemitism still alive in the 21st century) is the claim of its being widespread, and sharing a viral gene with mainstream and quasi-mainstream criticism of Israel. Hence my preference for the New Statesman cover (aside from the substantive notability of the latter, another point in its favor). Now it's my turn to ask you, why do you prefer the Zombie image to the cover of the New Statesman?--G-Dett (talk) 03:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

In response to IronDuke above, I am not saying that the image per se is original research. I am saying that concluding that the image is an illustration of New Anti-Semitism, the sort of analysis IronDuke offers above, is original research. (I think it's quite possibly entirely correct original research, but it's still original research.) In most contexts, user-uploaded images are clearly of what they illustrate. Here, we're trying to illustrate something (or even somethings) more abstract, which is more difficult. I feel one needs to know the background and intent of the artist to reliably conclude that the placard illustrates New Anti-Semitism rather than any other variety of anti-semitism. Bondegezou (talk) 10:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett: I must object in the strongest possible terms to how easy you are making this; I expect to have much better arguments to wrestle with in future. The New Statesman image? Really? Okay. I look at it, and I fail to see an image that exhausts all major facets of NAS, which is one of your primary objections to the zombie image. In fact, the image you point to is borderline inscrutable. A “kosher conspiracy” to what? To defend Israel? To do so at the expense of the Palestinians? At the expense of Britons? Of the world? I have no idea. I think the cover is merely muddled, with a spicy dash of rank idiocy; nothing like as good as the zombie poster. And do you honestly think that an image exists that would illustrate antisemitism emanating from the left, the right, and fundamentalist Islam all at once? Love to see it, if you do. It seems to me your standards argue for the impossibility of having any image up top. As to the key point about NAS being that it is widespread, I can’t see where you’re getting that. It is a point, yes. But the Zombie image contains a great deal of what is in the lead. I shall enumerate:

New antisemitism is the concept of a new 21st-century form of antisemitism emanating simultaneously from the left [Yes]

the
right
, [No]

and
fundamentalist Islam
[No]

and tending to manifest itself as opposition to Zionism [Yes]

and the
State of Israel
. [Yes]

The concept generally posits that much of what purports to be criticism of Israel by various individuals and world bodies is in fact tantamount to demonization [Yes]

and that together with an international resurgence of attacks on
Jewish symbols
[Kinda, but we'll go ahead and give you that one]

and an increased acceptance of antisemitic beliefs in public discourse… [Yes]

...Proponents of the concept argue that… anti-Americanism [Yes]

anti-globalization
[Yes]

third worldism
[Yes]…

...or double standards applied to its conduct [No].

So that’s 8 out of 12, as I count it. I hereby challenge you to beat that score (and will make

IronDuke

00:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Bond, I feel that other “abstract” concepts have images and do just fine, eg

IronDuke

00:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

"...and an increased acceptance of antisemitic beliefs in public discourse...[Yes]" Ironduke, this is exactly what the image does not show, and the fact that – after all this discussion and contemplation – you still mistakenly think it does... confirms my belief that the image is likely to poison the well for casual readers. And this of course is a central objection to the image voiced by CJ, myself, and others.

As I've explained several times, what puts this article in a special class of articles is that it's about a disputed hypothesis, and in that context a photo like this one takes on pseudo-evidentiary value (ergo your belief that it shows "acceptance"). Something like

Allegations of Israeli apartheid is an excellent parallel example (far better than Nationalism or Homophobia), because in that article, like this one, the basic facts are not in dispute, what's in dispute is the theory explaining these phenomena. There is not a single image illustrating that article, incidentally, which I think is very telling. Would it be appropriate to place a photo of the wall around Qalqiya ([22], [23]) at the head of it? Or how about an image of Palestinians workers at an Israeli checkpoint? ([24], [25]) How about pictures of Hebron under curfew? ([26],[27]

) Perhaps with an article-space link to the fringey pro-Palestinian blog of the pseudonymous photographer who took it? Or on the other hand how about a photo of a Barak supporter with an "Us here, them there" placard? I would find all of these problematic. I would object to them, and my guess is I'd be joined by you, Armon, and Jay in objecting to them. I would much prefer to find, say, an image of the cover of Nation or The Economist or something with a picture of the wall with the headline "An apartheid state?" All the better if said magazine cover had itself been discussed at length in the context of the controversy. The reader is supplied with an image central to a controversial subject, as opposed to being supplied with what purports to be evidence of the disputed phenomenon.

You keep saying I fault the Zombie image for failing to "exhaust all major facets of NAS." No I don't. In addition to finding the image well-poisoning, sensational, non-notable, and pseudo-evidentiary, I fault it for failing to adequately present any of the facets of NAS that make that concept notable, interesting, and controversial. NAS is not the theory that there are antisemitic conspiracist cranks in the world who see the Jews as the cause of 21st-century problems; it is the theory that such back-alley cranks represent only the most obvious symptoms of a global virus, a mutation of an old virus that has found new hosts not only in marginal cranks but in the chattering classes, a virus sneaking into and finding "increased acceptance...in public discourse." Discourse in venues, say, like the New Statesman.

Lastly, you say you find the New Statesman cover "merely muddled" and "borderline inscrutable." Jay for his part finds it "fairly uncompelling." All very well, but the fact is, the RSs – several of them, and among the better of our sources – find the New Statesman cover both significant and compelling. Which they clearly have not done with the Zombie image. Why not? It may be that for all its sensationalism, they find it says little about NAS, in which case what can I say but me neither. Or it may be that they found the source dubious, in which case I wonder why we're setting our standards well below those of the very sources we rely upon.--G-Dett (talk) 07:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC) --G-Dett (talk) 05:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Oddly enough, since you made that post

WP:POINT? Since you say you would "object to them", here's your opportunity. Jayjg ^(talk)

03:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a moot point now. CJCurrie (talk) 04:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

IronDuke, thanks for making me sound like some kind of spy! You raise the example of the lead image in the Homophobia article. That image is another user-submitted image, but note how citations are given to place the image in a context and demonstrate that the content of the image really is about homophobia - namely, the protestor is from a group identified by reliable sources as being homophobic. We don't have any reliable sources saying that the Zombietime placard is by a person or group identified with New Anti-Semitism. Bondegezou (talk) 12:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

And that is the main problem. Including an image that may or may not be an example of new antisemitism is

original research unless you find a reliable source saying it is an example of NAS. // Liftarn (talk

)

By way of a belated response to

User:IronDuke, there's a problem with your logic: our own definition of "new antisemitism" is seriously flawed. The scholars and journalists who have written about the concept of "new antisemitism" have addressed it in a variety of ways. Some use the term to refer to a general increase in anti-Semitism. Some describe the term as referring to left-wing anti-Zionism, while others do not (I just read David Matas

's book recently, and while I strongly disagree with his argument I was struck by the fact that he didn't try to malign the left as anti-Semitic). Some focus on developments in Muslim countries, while others have used it to refer to right-wing infiltration of the Left. Our own definition does not encompass these subtleties ... and is accordingly flawed.

The position that Zombietime's image must be used on Wikipedia because it fits Wikipedia's definition of a topic is the very definition of

circular logic. CJCurrie (talk

) 04:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

CJCurrie, that is your personal interpretation of the way that Wikipedia defines the topic. I would say that Wikipedia's definition is based on the multiple sources brought in the refs listed in the article Chocolatepizza (talk) 04:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the sources don't universally describe "new antisemitism" as a convergence of the "three streams", and many of the sources that mention a convergence don't emphasize this as its primary attribute. The importance point is that the existing literature on "new antisemitism" doesn't yield a definition anywhere near as cut-and-dry as our intro suggests -- you can't determine the feasibility of an image just by listing off its various attributes and comparing it with the article text. (Er ... have we met before?) CJCurrie (talk) 04:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The source that you mention does not mention Wikipedia at all so it can't be explaining how Wikipedia arrived at its definition. When you write that the use of the image is using circular reasoning, this is based on your own personal opinion of how the wikipedia article arrived at its definition. Regarding the convergence, this is a common theme throughout all the refs. (I think I bumped into you at the supermarket, but other than that, no, I don't think so) Chocolatepizza (talk) 04:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm ... I think there's been a misunderstanding here. I wasn't referring to other sources that do or don't mention Wikipedia, and I'm not entirely certain what you're referring to. I was rather addressing IronDuke's decision to defend the Zombietime image as based on the wording of this very Wikipedia article, which strikes me as a problematic strategy even in a best-case scenario. Building on my previous remarks, I could add that several credible sources have referenced both Dave Brown's "Goya Sharon" and "Kosher Conspiracy" image with reference to the idea of a "new antisemitism"; by contrast, the discussion about Zombietime's image has mostly taken place on low-level, amateur and partisan sources. This is the sort of thing that should inform our decision, not whether or not any given picture is closer to our own introductory wording. (And I still believe that the introductory wording is flawed, but I'm really not certain I have the time or patience to go too far into reopening that particular debate at present.) CJCurrie (talk) 04:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Msa sfsu poster.jpg

fair use

.
Please go to
Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline
is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
talk
) 17:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

New relevant source

Weinberg, Leonard "What's new?: A review essay on the 'new' anti-Semitism", Terrorism and Political Violence 19 (4): 611-620 2007. Please note that I haven't read this yet and don't know what line it is taking, but it looks like it will be very relevant and worth including. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I have read it and, yes, I think's it's relevant and worth including. It reviews five books about New Anti-Semitism and discusses both recent developments in anti-Semitism and to what degree or in what way this is new anti-Semitism. The line the article takes can be summarised by its closing paragraph: "Despite the diversity of approaches, styles and perspectives, the writers agree that the revival of anti-Semitism is not an optical illusion, a product of hyper-sensitivity. They also agree with Bernard Lewis that the new wave of anti-Semitism is focused on Israel. For Lewis, Israel's efforts to maintain its national independence has aroused a new kind of anti-Semitism one based on political belief rather than religious or racial considerations. On this point, the writers disagree with Lewis and sometimes among themselves. Some elements in the anti-Semitic revival reflect old views about Jews adjusted to fit new conditions. The Jewish world conspiracy for example. Others though do seem new and innovative, tributes to the speed of mass communications and the human imagination." Bondegezou (talk) 12:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for moving forward

I would like to suggest that we use this image at the top of the article. Not only are its provenance and notability known quantities, but it is known to have touched off discussions of the "new antisemitism," which explicitly cite it. In short, everything about it (including its relevance to the subject) is sourced, and we'd be supplying the reader with a key document in the controversy he's reading about.
All sourcing issues aside, I think it's also a far better visual lead-in to the controversy at the heart of 'new antisemitism.' NAS is not controversial for maintaining that fringey images of Jews looking like demons and devils and rubbing their hands in voracious glee while the earth is consumed by the fire of war are antisemitic. It is controversial for maintaining that prominent left-wing criticism of Israel has become infected with forms of antisemitism we thought had vanished from public life, but in fact were only lying dormant.
When an image that flirts with the line between legitimate criticism and paranoid demagoguery makes it on to the cover of the New Statesman, this better captures the controversial dynamics of NAS than does a crazy image of Jewish devils torching the globe – an image whose economy of distribution (before Wikipedia got its hands on it) consisted of having been designed by one crank, held aloft by a second, and photographed by a third.--G-Dett (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Can we use that image without copyright problems? It does seem closer to "new antisemitism" than the other image. But it's not public domain. --John Nagle (talk) 19:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
That's a good question, and one I have to admit I hadn't considered.--G-Dett (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
We already have an image of that cover on Wikipedia; see
reliable sources in the context of new anti-Semitism. This cover is one; the Dave Brown Goya cartoon is another; I believe some of Carlos Latuff's cartoons have also been discussed in this context. *** Crotalus ***
01:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain the article in question doesn't even mention "New antisemitism"; can you quote Zuckerman's statement regarding "New antisemitism"? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Red herring. The cover itself has been discussed by reliable sources as an illustration of NAS.--G-Dett (talk) 04:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is an article in The Guardian that specifically discusses that cover as a possible example. "The new anti-Semitism - say those who argue most strongly for its existence - is not simply limited to attacks on individuals like rabbi Gigi, and to a spate of attacks on synagogues and Jewish schools and cemeteries. Instead, they say, it is a pernicious and widespread cancer infecting the media and political classes across Europe. [...] Here too it has been debated across the pages of our more literate press, a debate that has reached boiling point in Britain in recent weeks. The New Statesman - through an ill-advised cover illustration for an article detailing attempts at media bullying and manipulation by the government of Israel's hawkish prime minister, Ariel Sharon - was accused of anti-Semitism and forced to apologise for what it characterised as a 'kosher conspiracy'." *** Crotalus *** 04:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

And here's Zuckerman's claim: "The new anti-Semitism transcends boundaries, nationalities, politics, and social systems. [...] AMERICANS, WHO HAVE COME to take for granted the scurrilous anti-Semitism that routinely appears in the Arab press, might be amazed by what now appears in the sophisticated European press. In England, the Guardian wrote that "Israel has no right to exist." The Observer described Israeli settlements in the West Bank as "an affront to civilization." The New Statesman ran a story titled "A Kosher Conspiracy," illustrated by a cover showing the gold Star of David piercing the Union Jack. The story implies that a Zionist-Jewish cabal is attempting to sway the British press to the cause of Israel." *** Crotalus *** 04:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is a published book, by Bernard Harrison (The Resurgence of Anti-Semitism: Jews, Israel, and Liberal Opinion, Rowman & Littlefield, 2004) that discusses the image in the context of "a new anti-Semitism abroad in Western cognitive elites." *** Crotalus *** 04:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
The third reference is by far the best, and most direct. It also includes an interesting analysis of the entire issue. You certainly have strengthened your argument that the New Statesman cover page is a good candidate for the lead. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. There were a few other references as well that might be relevant; I'll see if I can dig any of them up. *** Crotalus *** 04:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Is B'nai Brith Canada generally considered a
reliable source at least for their own views? If so, then this article might also be relevant. *** Crotalus ***
04:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, I don't know enough about the British Parliament to tell whether this has any reliability or not (is it an official report, or just testimony? If the latter, is the group reliable?), but it might be worth looking at as well. It also mentions the cover as one of the "key developments" in what the report says is new anti-Semitism. *** Crotalus *** 05:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Anti-Semitism in Europe: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on European Affairs, prepared by the United States Subcommittee on European Affairs (part of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations) discussed the New Statesman cover in the context of NAS, as did Contemporary Antisemitism" Canada and the World ("The cover of the London weekly New Statesman (14 January 2002), long the flagship journal of the British left, carried the headline ‘A Kosher Conspiracy? The story claimed to describe the influence of a rich, potent Zionist lobby that harassed, threatened, and smeared journalists who did not toe ‘the Jewish line' on Israel"). I think if there's no permissions issue, this is the way forward.--G-Dett (talk) 05:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. It's clearly about "new anti-semitism", and it's from a mainstream source. It makes a better case that "new anti-semitism" is a mainstream issue, and not just something from the outer fringes. --John Nagle (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Is this point still under discussion? "A Kosher Conspiracy" isn't my first choice, but I agree that it does penetrate to the heart of the controversy (certainly much better than Zombietime's snapshot). CJCurrie (talk) 04:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Zombietime image credit

Why are we linking to his website in this fashion on the article? That is not acceptable. He can get his credit on the image page like all other photograph owners. I'm removing that again. Lawrence Cohen 17:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand, (somewhere in the archives) that this was a request. I have never seen a policy statement on this point. It is fairly standard in all print media to give attributions. While we don't do this as standard since most of our images are free or fair use, it seems reasonable to do so when (a) they are "donated" and (b) this has been requested. I don't see what the objection to this could be, and it should be policy as it would encourage people to licence their works for use on wikipedia. Lobojo (talk) 17:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems a bit much to ask people to let us use their images for free and refuse to give them the traditional photocredit. Lobojo (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I've seen several threads on this on ANI before. It's not appropriate to link to the outside sites like that, from the article space. There was one I brought up myself, which I can't recall now, and the consensus was that it wasn't appropriate. They get their photo credit on the image page. Did this person that owns the photo insist on this special priviledge? Where is that detailed in public? Lawrence Cohen 17:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Relevant ANI thread from November 2007. There is support for removing such needless tags in article space; image authors are credited on the Image: space page. Lawrence Cohen 17:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

There is also support for not removing attribution in captions.
Wikipedia:Captions does not answer the question. This subject has been brought up in multiple locations: [28], [29], [30], [31]
, etc. In each case, strong arguments were made on both sides, but no clear consensus was reached. Wikipedia's Main Page always credits "Today's featured picture", so there are at least some situations where crediting is acceptable.

In this case, the goal of crediting in the caption is to induce photographers to license their photos in such a way that we can use them on Wikipedia. Most of the above discussions ignore this aspect. One place where it is directly covered, though, is here in VO's "how-to" on how to successfully request copyright permission for images. He recommends crediting in the image captions, and this helps create high-quality, free content on Wikipedia.

In this case, this is a highly contentious image. There are definitely partisans who want to remove this picture for political reasons, and there are definitely partisans who want to keep it for political reasons. So anything that jeopardizes this image is bound to attract controversy. With that in mind, I'd recommend leaving the credit in the image caption unless there is clear consensus on the issue in general, not just in this instance. As of now there is no consensus, but Wikipedia-wide RFC would probably be a good idea. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

As there is a WP article on Zombietime, why not just do this: "Photo credit: zombietime."? Solves the external link issue. <<-armon->> (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Do we have a precedent of doing this for any other image authors on other articles? I'd like to see some other examples. Lawrence Cohen 22:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Of course there is precedent.
Baith Israel-Anshei Emeth Synagogue, etc. Jayjg ^(talk)
03:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Quadell, I think part of the concern here is that we're sort of promoting Zombietime. I don't mean promoting his/her ideological agenda (a separate issue) but rather promoting him as a photographer and so on. (S)he apparently took this picture and sent it anonymously to a lot of different media outlets, and it was only picked up by four blogs, Horowitz's Frontpagemagazine, and a very small local paper in Santa Cruz, California. But if it was rejected by the mainstream press it's going like gangbusters here on Wikipedia, headlining three articles and with a prominent photo credit in mainspace, which we're now proposing to link directly to Zombie's Wikipedia article. Think about it: someone types "new antisemitism" into Google, the first thing they get is the Wikipedia article, click that and the first thing they see is Zombie's image and a prominent link to Zombie's website and/or Wiki bio. And this is someone who isn't discussed, mentioned, cited, or apparently even trusted by most reliable sources. There's something, I don't know, vaguely promotional about this.
I know WP has a tradition of allowing the uploading of amateur images, but we seem to be having it every which way here; professionalism and amateurism are becoming each other's alibis. If you object to the fact that Zombie's a fringey and unsuitable source for article content, you're told that images needn't be
verifiable, and that Zombie's contributions are no different from any other amateur's. But then attached to this 'amateur' image we have this promotional link to his "professional" website as a photographer, justified on the grounds that it would encourage other professionals to license their work to us.--G-Dett (talk
) 22:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That promotional aspect if why I was wondering. What if someone had a link to their site in these images that didn't qualify for
WP:EL, for example? Would they get a free link by virtue of the image? Lawrence Cohen
22:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[post deleted by G-Dett, per Lawrence Cohen]
Alright, there's obviously some bitter blood here over this image. My removal of the external link was 100% based on the fact that we shouldn't be promoting/externally linking in article space like that. If possible, can we stay focused on that? Lawrence Cohen 23:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That's your viewpoint, but it doesn't seem supported by either policy, guideline, or even AN discussions - the latter are quite mixed, with firm proponents on both sides. Frankly, it seems petty and churlish to remove the attribution. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
There's no indication that Zombie is a professional photographer, or that his site is a professional one, or that he sent this image round to media outlets. It's quite standard to credit people in the caption, on Wikipedia and elsewhere. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
But we haven't credited a "person," we've linked to a freelance professional photographer's blog, www.zombietime.com. And the sources given make clear that he or she or they indeed "sent this image round to media outlets"; they say so. We're blurring the line between amateur user-uploaded images and cited reliable sources, and the net effect is promotional.--G-Dett (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
It isn't really promotional. Zombitime is nothing more than a nom-de-plume of a anonymous person. Seeing as zombietime isn't a bad link, I don't think there is problem linking to the site. But really, wikipedia should have a firm policy on this declaring that anyone who licenced their work for wikipedia is entitled to both a fair attribution and a link to their homepage if they request it. It really would be an excelent thing for wikipedia. Lobojo (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
However, since the image is being used under as "fair use" it's really a moot point. // Liftarn (talk)

This settles it I think

Wikipedia policy explicitly endorses providing a courtest tag to image and link back to the owner
Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#For image creators. We have a special template for such situtions Template:CopyrightedFreeUse-Link. Lobojo (talk
) 22:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

LawrenceCohen opened this debate by asking why we link to www.zombietime.com in article space, rather than in the usual place for photo credits "like everybody else." This is why it seems so oddly promotional. I don't think the copyright template you link to says anything about linking in article space.

If this is really how things are supposed to be done, I'll pass on the tip to a couple of freelance photographer friends of mine looking for ways to get exposure for their work.--G-Dett (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Most images link to source, but this is for people who have specifically requested a link. And that is very good idea, it will facilitate a tremendous wealth of images for wikipedia, which would be a good thing. Such links are not ads any more than other external links are. Lobojo (talk) 22:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
My friends will be delighted, but make no mistake, this is very different from external links. You could not add "Zombietime" to the external links, and more than I could add my blog to the external links. But we're agreed on one thing, Lobojo: your plan will facilitate a tremendous wealth of images for Wikipedia. I have right now, by the way, a tremendous wealth of emails in my inbox offering to enlarge the penis I don't have.--G-Dett (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry about your penis dude. Zombietime is allowed in external links, it is not on the bad sites list. This is just an external link like any other. You could certainly add your blog to the external links section, if you say were notable and had an article, your blog would belong in the external links. Lobojo (talk) 23:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the condolences girl. Zombie is not an RS; hence this discussion. See relevant sections in WP:External links: "Links normally to be avoided" (esp. #12) and "Advertising and conflicts of interest."--G-Dett (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I linked the photo credit to our article. It's supposed to be NPOV (haven't bothered to look, but it's supposed to be) so it shouldn't be advertorial, or COI, and there is no longer an external link. Can we drop this now? <<-armon->> (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I still don't understand why we're linking to a non-RS; if the photo stays (a separate subject being hotly debated) why don't we just credit it the same way we credit every other photo?--G-Dett (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
My memory of the Creative Commons Attribution licence is that people may ask to be credited using whatever name or website they choose, and this was his choice. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
But the image is used as "fair use" so what Creative Commons says is irrelevant. // Liftarn (talk)
Zombietime's photographing is released under CC as far as that goes; it's the content of what Zombietime photographed which is under fair use... AnonMoos (talk) 13:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
According to Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. he can not claim own copyright of it. So again I say that the Zombietime credit is a moot point. // Liftarn (talk)
Whatever, dude -- it's a simple fact that a photographer can assign a copyright license to a photo that he takes, yet the content of what is photographed can have further copyright restrictions. AnonMoos (talk) 14:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
In this case the replication of a previous artwork doesn't introduce any new copyright. // Liftarn (talk)
Unfortunately for you, you're wrong yet again. The act of taking the photograph certainly doesn't give Zombietime any special rights or permissions with respect to the "artwork" on the placard (which still remains the property of the original placard-maker), but Zombietime still retains the rights to the photograph as a photograph, unless and until Zombietime chooses to give such rights away (partially or fully). If you're likening the position of Zombietime to the position of Bridgeman in Bridgeman vs. Corel, then that's simply and clearly pathetic nonsense -- since Bridgeman vs. Corel only applies to faithful scans (which allow a minimum of scope for individual creativity in the scanning/photographing process) of artworks which are already out of copyright in the United States, and of course NONE of those conditions apply to Zombietime taking a photo at a 2003 demonstration. Therefore I declare your previous remarks to be in non-compliance with policy WP:SUPERCALIFRAGILISTICEXPIALIDOCIOUS. AnonMoos (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Well this is all very interesting folks but can I just ask (again) why we don't credit Zombie the same way we credit everyone else – i.e., on the image page?--G-Dett (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
As mentioned directly above, we often credit other photographers in exactly this way. See
Baith Israel-Anshei Emeth Synagogue, etc. Jayjg ^(talk)
04:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Hey, wait a minute folks. This is a copyrighted image which we're using under a fair use claim. If the idea is to credit photographers who release their work to Wikipedia, as a quid pro quo, then what's the "quo" here? <eleland/talkedits> 18:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Zombietime has apparently released the photograph, as a photograph, under a "CC" licence to Wikipedia, but of course Zombietime has no control over the copyright status of the contents of the placard, and that's where fair use comes in... AnonMoos (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed that Zombietime sells those images and has a commercial licensing agent? His site says "If you wish to publish or broadcast any original images from zombietime, please use the email address below to contact my commercial licensing agent Scoopt.com. "[32]. Scoopt is a service which resells pictures taken by amateurs to the news media. They're a subsidiary of Getty Images. We have a copyright problem. --John Nagle (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Where does it say that Zombietime can't simultaneously sell his photos, and also release one of them under a "CC" license to Wikipedia? AnonMoos (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
There's an exclusivity clause in the Scoopt service agreement[http://www.scoopt.com/Articles/Terms-Conditions.aspx}, but it's only for 12 months after the image is submitted to Scoopt. This image is old enough that's probably not an issue. I hadn't noticed until now that Wikipedia has an OTRS ticket granting rights, even though the image has a "fair use" tag. So it looks OK. --John Nagle (talk) 05:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
If Zombietime did violate his exclusivity agreement, then that would be an issue between him and Scoopt, and it's rather doubtful that it would affect us... AnonMoos (talk) 06:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Citation style modification request

I would like to somewhat change the citation style. There are many citations to the same text which only differ by page number. Usually, a
Harvard style author-date-page number system works better in this case, but as there are hundreds of footnotes already in the article, changing to a parenthetical citation style would be overwhelming and likely too confusing. However, there does exist the option of using Template:Rp, which would allow one entry for the main text, and a superscripted, in-line notation made as to the page number(s). Would that be too much of a change for this article, or would y'all find that acceptable? As it stands now, the citations are a hodgepodge of templates, non-templates, broken links, multiple entries, and really need work. -- Avi (talk
) 03:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Avi, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't introduce citation templates, as they make the text very hard to read and edit for flow. As for the way citations are repeated, this is because some people argue each and every point, and if it's not nailed down, they remove it, but they also don't want to read through the whole paragraph, or even sentence sometimes. Therefore it has been necessary to add citations directly after the point they support, even if it's mid-sentence. I'm not familiar with Template:Rp and what benefits it would bring. It's often helpful to have the book or paper repeated in full, because so few people actually read the text, so they want to see all the details of the source right there, wherever the point of contention is. Whenever we've removed sources, or tried to make them less repetitive, it has led to text being removed. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Slim. A few points.
Firstly, there are a number of links that are broken, which I fixed. By reverting back to the old version I believe you may have introduced the non-working links again. Also, the Bauer pdf link is dead, although I have not found a replacement yet.

I believe having the templates in a linear form, as opposed to horizonatlly (text-like) makes it easier to decipher what is text and what is citation whilst editing. Otherwise, it gets very confusing, especially when note references contain full-sentence quotations. WHen a template is used, the braces set off what is undoubtedly a citation and the linear format makes for an immediately identifiable differentiation in the edit mode, which is completely transparent in regular viewing mode.

Template:Rp Would allow the main text, and link, to be brought once in the NOTES section, and then it would generate the same numeric footnote in the text (and be shown as a, b, c, d, etc. in the notes section). For example, if <ref name = "ZOG" /> is note ^[23], using <ref name = "ZOG" />{{rp|pg. 17}} would give ^{[23]: pg. 17}, where the 23 is linked to the main entry and the page number appears immediately after the footnote inline in the text.

-- Avi (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide an example of an article where this is implemented as you describe? Lobojo (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Which point, 3 or 2? -- Avi (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Avi, I agree with you, the cites are a mess. The problem is that I find template citations a pain, same as SV does. There are especially a problem when cites are placed mid-sentence or paragraph. Maybe there's a better way? <<-armon->> (talk) 03:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

What specifically is it about template citations that you find a pain? Knowing what the concern is will help to zero in on any potential solutions :) -- Avi (talk) 03:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

When you're editing, it makes it extremely hard to cast your eye over the article for flow if there templates in the way, either between sentences or sometimes even inside them. So fixing the writing becomes very difficult -- actually close to impossible. Articles that contains lots of citation templates tend to be badly written for that very reason (though there may be exceptions out there I'm not aware of). SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I guess that is a matter of preference as personally, I find it near impossible to see where article text ends and cite begins, so I know what to skip, unless it is in vertical format. However, even if you do not like vertical format. horizontal format is near identical to what you have now, with just some pipes and equal signs thrown in. Is it specifically the braces and pipes that disturb y'all, or the vertical format? -- Avi (talk) 04:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Progressive' Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism

This section in the article is repeated verbatim in the Progressive Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism article. We need to choose one or the other. I suggest we summarize their position and link to that article in the "Response" section. <<-armon->> (talk) 02:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this would be the most logical course of action. (Now if any we could reach agreement on the more fundamental points of contention ...) CJCurrie (talk) 03:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have placed a {{
WP:SUMMARY. -- Avi (talk
) 03:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Finkelstein

I think Finkelstein section should also be removed, his position summarized and put into the "response" section. Giving a fringey polemicist and conspiracy theorist like Finkelstein that much space brings up some serious
WP:UNDUE issues versus content from the multiple groups and scholars who study the subject of antisemitism seriously. They get nowhere near the amount of article space, and I can't see why that should be. <<-armon->> (talk
) 03:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

My problem with this assessment is that Norman Finkelstein is a serious scholar of anti-Semitism, albeit one whose political views have cost him dearly in academia. I'm not entirely averse to the idea of truncating the section in question (or, better yet, adding other scholarly sources who have expressed similar views), but it might help matters if you addressed this issue in a slightly more serious manner. CJCurrie (talk) 03:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

"...a serious scholar of anti-Semitism" -according to whom? <<-armon->> (talk) 04:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

As I've said elsewhere, for every Alan Dershowitz or Benny Morris who criticizes him, there's a Noam Chomsky or Raoul Hilberg to sing his praises. Yes, he's controversial. Yes, other participants in this dispute despise him. No, those aren't sufficient grounds to exclude him. CJCurrie (talk) 04:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not talking about "excluding" him. <<-armon->> (talk) 02:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The article as a whole is overlong and remarkably repetitive. I am all for looking for ways to streamline it, and paring down the Finkelstein material could be part of that. This proposal as framed, however, is a non-starter. Finkelstein is highly regarded in his field, widely praised in adjacent fields, and has written a major work of scholarship in large part about the 'new antisemitism', which was published by one of the top university presses in the world. It also passed an unusual degree of peer-review vetting and fact-checking due to political pressure from outside demagogues. He's also written several other highly acclaimed works of scholarship on the political valences of discourse about contemporary antisemitism in America. Yes, he's also quite a polemicist, as are most of the journalists and scholars cited for this most polemical of subjects, but no question about it he's one of our top sources.--G-Dett (talk) 05:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

...and he provides webspace for
Latuff
cartoons! Seriously, the guy is clearly an "outlier" unless you happen to be far-left, far-right, or Islamist, in which case, he's great. This is the problem with "mainstreaming" the guy in the article.
Yeah and we provide space for Zombietime cartoons. Talk about mainstreaming.--G-Dett (talk) 23:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry, we host Latuff as well. The key difference is: we're just using a photo the guy took -and that's it. We're not presenting Zombietime as any sort of "expert" on the subject. <<-armon->> (talk) 02:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

A better way of dealing with Finkelstein is to place him in his proper context, as a apologist for the far-left, far-right, or Islamist position. If you want to call him one of our top sources for that, no problem, I agree. Otherwise he doesn't really shed any light, only heat, on the subject. We'd might as well "balance" him with Dershowitz. <<-armon->> (talk) 11:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Considering he is a "political scientist and author, specialising in Jewish-related issues"* it seems he is having views within his field of expertise. // Liftarn (talk)

Agreed. The fact that he has cartoons on his webspace does not invalidate his acknowledged expertise, and that appears to be the only actual evidence raised to support the argument here. csloat (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I also agree. There is no valid basis to exclude an academic of such stature on the very subject that he is an expert in. If anything he should be given more space for his very relevant expert views on the subject.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

One would think his reputation would be determined by the esteem accorded to his work by his peers. One would think his unanimous recommendation for tenure, not to mention the spirited and very public defense of his work given at a University of Chicago event by what the Jewish Telegraph Agency called "widely cited experts on international affairs and American foreign policy" who "Collectively ... have published more than a hundred books and countless articles," would be a strong sign in that regard. <eleland/talkedits> 23:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

...actually, he was rejected for tenure, but yeah, I know, it was a conspiracy. <<-armon->> (talk) 00:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't a conspiracy – where did you hear that? It was merely a scandal (which is a different thing), because (1) Finkelstein had the full support of his faculty tenure committee, the college-wide personnel committee, both external senior scholars solicited by the College for peer-review evaluations (Ian Lustick and John Mearsheimer), the Middle East Studies Association of America, and the Association of American University Professors; (2) he was acknowledged by DePaul university itself to be an "outstanding teacher and prolific scholar"; (3) there was unprecedented outside pressure on the tenure process from Alan Dershowitz, who sent a 50-page dossier of defamatory materials purporting to show "evidence of academic misconduct" to the departmental tenure committee, who examined it in detail and dismissed every single charge; (4) the only thumbs-down came from the faculty dean, an undistinguished erstwhile urban planning professor, whose solecistic 2-page recommendation to deny tenure suggested an unfamiliarity with Finkelstein's scholarship beyond what had been extracted by the defamatory Dershowitz dossier – and in fact when "quoting" Finkelstein misspelled the very same words the comparably unlettered Dershowitz had misspelled; (5) Finkelstein was the first professor in the history of the university to be recommended for tenure at the departmental and college levels and then be denied at the administrative level; and finally (6) the second professor in DePaul's history to be recommended at the departmental and college levels and denied at the administrative level – she was denied tenure several weeks later, with no explanation – had done exactly one controversial thing in her career, namely, supporting Finkelstein's bid for tenure.

A conspiracy is a secret backroom deal. A scandal is when people in the ordinary course of their public or professional lives disgrace themselves and the institutions they represent through rank cowardice and transparent dishonesty.--G-Dett (talk) 02:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Several credible sources (including Ellen Schrecker, the foremost authority on McCarthyism in academia) have argued that Finkelstein was denied tenure for political reasons. Leaving that point aside, it should also be mentioned that DePaul University acknowledged him as a "prolific scholar and outstanding teacher". CJCurrie (talk) 01:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

...and many more consider that to be rubbish. The point remains that he is fringe, and doesn't actually study antisemitism. He merely axe-grinds about charges of antisemitism being "politically motivated" out of his own obvious political motivations. <<-armon->> (talk) 02:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Armon, you're wasting our time. We are not a peer-review committee. The peer-review committees Finkelstein's work has encountered in real life have found it outstanding. Virtually all of the sources used for this article, even those very few who are of Finkelstein's caliber and reputation, have readily apparent political motivations. Which is to be expected; this is a political subject.--G-Dett (talk) 02:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right, this isn't a peer review committee. He obviously has a fan club here, but that in itself is meaningless. His "reputation" isn't what I'd call "good", and the regard for the caliber of his work has been "mixed" to say the least. It's fair to ask exactly what the "due weight" to grant him on this topic really is. <<-armon->> (talk) 03:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
He's well-known for writing highly polemical works. I'm not sure exactly what makes him a reliable source on Antisemitism; can someone explain that? It wasn't his specialty in University. He seems to have written half a book on the subject, Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History. (the other half being his feud with Dershowitz), and a chapter in another book, The Politics of Anti-Semitism. Both of these are highly polemical works; neither is scholarly. What, for example, would make him more of an expert on the subject than, say, Phyllis Chesler, someone who was actually a full professor, and who wrote a popular work on the subject? Note by the way, that we only use Chesler's book as one source in initially defining New antisemitism; she was purposely avoided as a source in the body of the text, precisely because her work was popular, not scholarly. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The Polices of Anti-Semitism is not a scholarly release, but Beyond Chutzpah most certainly is -- it was published by a credible academic firm, and corresponds entirely to the issues under discussion here. Finkelstein may not be an expert on historical anti-Semitism, but his work on the Israel-Palestine conflict and its representation in North America is entirely relevant to this article. CJCurrie (talk) 04:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Don't forget his book on the Holocaust Industry or his peer-reviewed article about Goldhagen, for example. This debate is silly. His scholarship is well-regarded, and a good bit of it is about antisemitism. And some of it qualifies as "polemic," to be sure, but to pretend that invalidates it is a pretty blatant false correlative. As someone else pointed out, Wikipedia is not a tenure review committee and I think arguments premised on us acting like one are invalid. People want to quote stuff saying specifically that Finkelstein is not an expert in this field, and have a reliable source backing it up, great, go for it. But to say that you don't like what (or how) he writes and that therefore invalidates his work as a reliable source (and invalidates the large chorus of well-known scholarly voices affirming the scholarly nature of his work) is POV-pushing, pure and simple. That argument should be completely rejected by Wikipedia editors no matter what your political leanings. csloat (talk) 05:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It's really a stretch; The Holocaust Industry is not about "New antisemitism", and we really do need to qualify sources by their expertise. A winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics, for example, might well be a genius, but that wouldn't make him qualified to comment on history or political science. Finkelstein appears to have written 1/2 (actually 1/3) of a book on the topic that was published by an academic press; he doesn't appear to have any other relevant qualifications. That may well be enough to justify being quoted at length in this article, but let's not make out his expertise to be any more than it is. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

As Sloat points out, a central focus of Finkelstein's scholarship – including not only the works named above but also, notably, The Holocaust Industry – is precisely the political valences of contemporary antisemitism and contemporary discourse about contemporary antisemitism. But the comparison with Chesler doesn't make sense at all. Chesler's academic training is in a completely unrelated field (psychotherapy); her work on 'new antisemitism' has been a popular success but not a scholarly one. Conversely, Finkelstein's scholarship on contemporary antisemitism is written from within his discipline, political science, and has been an academic success but not a popular one. Employment status and scholarly status are entirely separate things (which is why peer review mechanisms are often blind). Your employment status is often based on your scholarly status, but the converse is not true. Chesler's full professorship is in psychology and women's s studies, moreover, and has no more bearing on her status as a good source for this article than does Chomsky's full professorship in linguistics.

Another important note: Finkelstein is certainly a polemicist (especially in his role as a blogger and public speaker), but it is not the case that critics and supporters of his scholarship fall neatly along political or partisan lines. Or more precisely, that's true on one side of the ledger but not the other. That is, the scholars who praise his work are all over the political map, from Raul Hilberg to Ian Lustick to John Mearsheimer to Eric Hobsbawm to Noam Chomsky. Those who attack him in the terms Armon has laid out here, by contrast, are uniformly and passionately 'pro-Israel' (in the conventional sense of that misleading phrase). At any rate, Finkelstein's field of expertise makes him not only an acceptable source here but an excellent one, one of our best. That he has political and partisan critics is not surprising and not in itself relevant, as this is a political and partisan subject.--G-Dett (talk) 05:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
For the most part, those who praise his work have been "all over the political map" in the same sense that
Katherine Hepburn's acting in a play as run[nig] the gamut of human emotion from A to B." They fall as neatly on the "pro-Israel/anti-Israel" axis as do his detractors. Jayjg ^(talk)
23:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Under
reliable sources — as defined above in our verifiability policy — and write the most neutral article we can. *** Crotalus ***
08:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Crotalus it's not OR. Any article we write will include some, and not other, sources. Of those we include, we are to attempt to grant
fringes of academia
.

Finking on Finkelstein

To call Finkelstein controversial is an understatement. The son of Holocaust survivors, he has gained notoriety by accusing his fellow Jews of exploiting the Holocaust to justify Israeli atrocities against the Palestinians and to "shake down" German corporations and Swiss banks. His 2000 book, The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering, was described by historian Omer Bartov in the New York Times Book Review as "a novel variation on the anti-Semitic forgery, 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.'" Finkelstein has assailed the film Schindler's List as a propaganda ploy to drum up sympathy for Israel, compared the Anti-Defamation League to Nazis, mocked Holocaust memoirist Elie Wiesel as a "clown," and suggested that Holocaust survivor accounts are routinely fabricated. More recently, he has scoffed at death threats to Muslim feminist Irshad Manji, a critic of Islamic extremism.

At times, Finkelstein has been the target of unfair charges. Dershowitz has accused him, apparently without solid grounds, of having commissioned an obscene cartoon that accompanied his anti-Dershowitz screed on one website. Finkelstein also convincingly defends himself against allegations that he is an admirer of Holocaust-denying historian David Irving. Yet the overall picture of his record is nothing short of morally repugnant.

Arguably, the issue is not Finkelstein's morality but the quality of his work. In this area, Finkelstein has some backers with no apparent political axe to grind; renowned Holocaust historian Raul Hilberg has praised his research on the mishandling of reparation payments to Holocaust survivors. But it is worth noting that he has no publications in peer-reviewed journals—usually a requirement for tenure—and most assessments of his books have been scathing. Columbia University historian David Greenberg, no knee-jerk defender of Israel, called The Holocaust Industry "a hate-filled screed" filled with "pseudo-scholarship, extreme anti-Israel ideology and—there is no way around it—anti-Semitism."

The Academic Exile of Norman Finkelstein -- New York Magazine:

He was a Maoist revolutionary in his youth. By his own account, his academic career was bedeviled from the start by his politics: It took him thirteen years to wrest his doctorate from Princeton, since no faculty member would agree to advise him on his thesis, an analysis of Zionism. When he finally did earn the degree, none would write him a recommendation. He went on to take a series of adjunct posts—at Brooklyn College, Hunter, and NYU—rarely earning more than $20,000 a year.

At DePaul, where he arrived six years ago, his situation improved. But the success of The Holocaust Industry, which was translated into over two dozen languages and was a best seller in Germany, raised his profile, and the critics mobilized. Harvard’s Alan Dershowitz waged a fierce campaign against him, preparing a dossier of Finkelstein’s “clearest and most egregious instances of dishonesty.” Still, his department, and the college, recommended him for tenure. But the university’s promotion-and-tenure board voted 4-3 against him, and DePaul’s president refused to overturn the decision.

Now, because I question presenting this guy as a towering academic on this subject (hey, why not soapbox
WP:TIGERS, I have no problem with those views being presented. However, what I do have a problem with, are the attempts to frame the article in such a way as to give each "side" equal time. It's roughly equivalent to allowing climate skeptics or intelligent designers to bias the climate change or evolution articles according to their fringe beliefs. <<-armon->> (talk
) 11:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Armon is apparently so impressed with the findings of his own one-man ad hoc amateur academic peer-review board – beefy as it is with cites from a Cathy Young op-ed and something from the great New York Magazine – that he's decided to implement it by deleting virtually all of the Finkelstein material, and burying his deletion in a flurry of copy edits. I'll restore it, but should he be contemplating a guerrilla edit war this is something for us all to keep an eye on.--G-Dett (talk) 15:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Armon, do you realize that you just cited a libertarian magazine with strong randite sympathies in order to tell us who's on the academic fringe? Not to mention one that makes trivially falsifiable claims, such as "no publications in peer-reviewed journals." Journal of Palestine Studies, anyone?

It's no secret that Finkelstein has been savaged in the popular press — the same popular press which acclaimed Hitler's Willing Executioners and From Time Immemorial. I'm more interested in what people with intact reputations and at least minimal qualifications on the subject have to say. Mearshimer, for example, in a presentation based on his extensively researched peer-review evaluation letter to DePaul (which they asked for):

There's no question that Finkelstein's scholarship is of a high enough quality to merit tenure at DePaul. Indeed, he is a major scholar whose works are known all around the globe. For sure, he is controversial. But that is mainly because he is making arguments that challenge conventional wisdoms about important subjects, and subjects which are difficult to talk about in the United States without getting into hot water.

The key point, however, is that Finkelstein makes compelling arguments in almost all of his writings, and thus he has played a key role in shaping both the academic and public discourse on a host of important subjects. In my opinion, that is the highest accolade one can afford to a scholar.

Let me say a few words about Finkelstein's four most important books, for the purpose of making it unequivocally clear that he has produced first rate books.

[ He praises Image and Reality, a Nation on Trial, quotes prominent scholars on the subjects praising them ]

The Holocaust Industry is Finkelstein's third book. This is probably - I should say 'undoubtedly' - his most controverisal work, because it makes the provocative argument that some Jews have exploited the memory of the Holocaust for personal gain. [ He quotes Hilberg on the subject ].

Beyond Chutzpah is Finkelstein's fourth important book. He performs three important tasks, three tasks in this outstanding work, which was published by a leading University press. He shows in crystal clear fashion how defenders of Israel use the charge of antisemitism to protect Israel from criticism when it is pursuing brutal policies in places like Lebanon and the Occupied Territories. [ he discusses the other two 'tasks' ] This book has already sold many copies, is widely cited, and is guaranteed to have a long shelf life, because it makes compelling arguments on a set of very important issues.

Finkelstein has written much more than I could talk about, but it is not necessary, because it should be clear at this point that the quality and the importance of his scholarship are far beyond what should be necessary for tenure at DePaul.

source
<eleland/talkedits> 19:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
As pointed out above, the only thing that is relevant to this article is that Finkelstein appears to have written 1/2 (actually 1/3) of a book on the topic that was published by an academic press; he doesn't appear to have any other relevant qualifications. That may well be enough to justify being quoted at length in this article, but let's not make out his expertise to be any more than it is. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
By this unusual metric, Bernard Lewis has written 1/9 of a book on the new antisemitism, and has no other relevant qualifications.--G-Dett (talk) 00:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

International perspectives

I shaved about 10 kilobytes off the length by cutting some of this section, and it could use being cut some more. We really need to get this under 100 kilobytes, and preferably quite a bit lower (under 80 would be ideal). SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think getting this down under 100 kilobytes is a great idea. There is a certain amount of repetition, and I think the structure could be leaned up a bit. Most of it is well-written sentence-by-sentence (largely thanks to you Slim) but there's a bit of bloat in the thing as a whole.--G-Dett (talk) 16:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Cutting out the original research and coatracking would trim the lenght considerably. // Liftarn (talk)

I've done a copy edit that got it down from 117 to 84 kilobytes, [33] mostly by removing repetion, laboured points, and things that seemed unclear or not directly related. See what you think. Perhaps you could restore anything that you think I shouldn't have removed, or remove even more -- and of course feel free to revert, given that such a lot was removed at once. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Broken citations, redundant citations

Slim, there are significant issues with the citations in this article. Many are broken and return errors, others do not link to existing wiki articles properly, still others appear to be woefully redundant in the list, not the article text itself. I agree that sometimes every sentence needs to be cited, but that does not mean we need 17 near-identical entries in the list when one entry with 17 backlinks to each mention in the text will suffice. Please leave the tags there until we make some significant headway with this morass. Not to mention the apparent redundancy with the section below Notes. -- Avi (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I have asked you a number of times, Slim, for a response. You say to take it to the talk page; so, where is your response? -- Avi (talk) 16:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

tendentious edits?

I noticed a number of edits are reverted as "tendentious," even those that clearly are not obviously so in any way. I think those editors need to explain themselves here before reverting again. Specifically, I refer to language I introduced in the introduction to makes this subject more NPOV, i.e. balanced according to the content of the article. Saying that its a concept (not "the" concept--who makes the claim that there is only one concept? That is absurd) that is disputed, should be a rather non-controversial statement of fact. The rest of this article proves this. The introduction should be honest and reflect the basic, elementary facts that will be discussed in the main body, i.e. that there is much controversy and that the concept is disputed. The main body can then give details about this, as it does. So why is there opposition to mentioning this quite cardinal fact that marks the main nature of this article on the subject? Does anyone dispute that its disputed and controversial? Of course not. So why leave this out of the introduction? Its the first thing a reader should know about this concept. I'd like to hear from the editors who are reverting, though, before I restore it. Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I see there are no objections to these proposed changes, again? If so I will restore them shortly. Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well looks like the article is now protected for a week.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It's good to see this article is finally unprotected. I also see no one appears to dispute my proposed changes so I have made them. Hopefully anyone who objects will explain themselves this time.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't insert
weasel words into the lede (e.g. "controversial", "said to be"). Jayjg ^(talk)
01:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

reliable source?

Question: What makes the personal news/blog website of some conservative (I'm talking about "zombietime"), a reliable source to be used in an encyclopedia's main article on a subject? I looked over ZombieTime and its its loaded with false, inaccurate, claims to boot. This is not a very reliable source, and certainly not a best source, for us to rely on it. If this is the only source for the picture, then the picture should be removed.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There are a number of lengthy discussions on exactly this topic, above. I suggest that, rather than starting afresh, you read the earlier discussions, and join in there. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You are right that Zombietime isn't a reliable source and the picture probably should be removed since it's not about the subject of the article, buy many editors like to have the picture in the article. // Liftarn (talk)
Thanks for the responses. Since editors are discussing this issue above, I won't remove it. I'll review the arguments, above, and join the discussion. I know that simply editors liking the photo is not good enough of an argument to keep it. In fact, its never a good idea to bolster a non-reliable source on WP, as it degrades the quality of Wikipedia to use such non-reliable sources, even if it means we sacrifice some valid content in doing so (until a good source can be found). The zombie site would be fine for use about itself on its own article, but not for other articles, as a reference. As I said, I looked through it and spotted various claims which I happen to know are false, factually. Its an embarrassment to this encyclopedia to use it as a reference source. I would hope that we have consensus as wikipedians over this proposition, as its a very basic one.Giovanni33 (talk) 09:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
It is a very basic one, and I've looked through the arguments above on this issue. There aren't any arguments justifying the use of a non-reliable source. There are also several other valid objections raised to this photo above. I really don't see any clear rationale on the other side -- comparisons to other antisemitic drawings, for sure, but no argument about why Wikipedia should be quoting a blog in this manner as a reliable source. The image should be removed forthwith. csloat (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, to be fair, it is slightly more complicated than that, because Wikipedia (both by policy and tradition) does allow the uploading of 'amateur' pictures, but they're almost always used in a self-evident and non-controversial way. The objections to this image arise from the fact that the subject of the article is a complicated and hotly disputed theory or concept, rather than an agreed-upon phenomenon. The objections are roughly of three kinds: (1) It is not self-evident that this image illustrates 'new antisemitism', since NAS posits not that classic antisemitism exists (a truism) but rather that it has infected quasi-mainstream discourse, and a picture of some crank's hateful doodle on a placard can't demonstrate that; (2) in an article about a much-disputed theoretical concept, it is well-poisoning to present an image that purports to be evidence of the phenomenon, especially when there are no good sources saying it is (what we should be doing is illustrating the concept as a disputed hypothesis, and the best way to do this is by presenting one of several images that themselves stirred controversy and have been widely discussed by reliable sources as exemplifying NAS); and (3) by justifying this image on the grounds that amateur images are allowed (since www.zombietime.com is not a reliable source), and then turning around and providing prominent article-space links to www.zombietime.com and/or the Zombietime Wikipedia article, we are playing a double game, steering web traffic to Zombie's website as well as leaving the reader to conclude that it's a reliable source.

It basically boils down to what we think an image should do. Jay & co. think it should shock and 'provoke an emotional response'; CJ & co. think it should dispassionately enlighten and draw the reader into the substantive core of the subject. Put another way, we're choosing between an image that says Hey reader! This is the New Antisemitism in action! and one that says Hi reader. The 'New Antisemitism' is a disputed concept. This image has been cited by many as an example of it.--G-Dett (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think its more fundamental than that. While I agree with you what a picture should do, its still permissible to sue one that provokes and socks. But the problem is much greater than that. The problem is, as you also expressed above, is what the picture is being used for. Amateur pictures can be fine when they are being used to provide a picture to illustrate something that there is no question about, i.e. a building, sculpture, painting, etc; the picture is thus showing what the subject is about: the thing in question. Notice that in such cases there is no original claim being made (lots of pictures will show the same object, or something very, very similar. And its not disputed or controversial. However, this picture does not do that. Rather, it purports to illustrate a controversial and abstract concept via a picture but without a source that says this is what the picture does. It is making an unsupported claim that we are originating by saying this picture illustrates this concept. We are not allowed to do that unless we have a reliable source that say basically, "here is a picture that illustrates the concept of "new anti-semitism" as advocated by its leading proponents." This has to come from a scholarly, reliable source. If we had such a source using this picture in this way, then we can post it here. Otherwise, this is a violation of No Original Research. This is OR because some editors think this picture is a good representation of what they think the concept is. That very may well be so, but its hardly clear cut, and thus we need a reliable source to support such an assertion. The fact is that this is a complicated, controversial, and disputed concept--as such one can not pick and choose which amature pictures we think represent the concept in the absence of a reliable source we can use to attribute such a claim. For us wikipedians to assert such a claim and use a picture we like to make the claim is blatant Original Research at best.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed it since nobody appears to be defending it anymore. There are some different positions outlined in this section but all seem to agree that the photo doesn't belong here; I definitely agree with Giovanni33 that the use of it here is original research, and I think it is functioning as an advertisement for an otherwise non-notable blog. csloat (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It's supported by an article in the Santa Cruz Sentinel[34], as the source shows. I suggest reading it. —Viriditas | Talk 23:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The source does not support the idea that the image is an example of new antisemitism. // Liftarn (talk)
Really? The source says: "But while the anti-Semitism Kenez faced waned dramatically, it didn’t end; it just took different forms...Baumgarten said anti-Semitism is rearing its head again in the United States, too. In addition to the Elders of Zion protocol published in New Jersey, war protesters at a recent San Francisco peace rally were photographed displaying pictures of the devil with a dollar sign over his head standing over a globe, surrounded by the words "Zionist Pigs" and "Stop the War Pigs." Now, from the lead section of this article: 'New antisemitism is the concept of a new 21st-century form of antisemitism emanating simultaneously from the left, the right, and fundamentalist Islam, and tending to manifest itself as opposition to Zionism and the State of Israel." There's also FrontPage Magazine on the poster[35] which the photographer describes as "the most striking and astounding anti-Semitic images to emerge from the current wave of Jew-hatred. It illustrates many of the classic anti-Semitic themes dating back centuries, very skilfully brought to life by the artist." —Viriditas | Talk 23:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
FrontPageMagazine is not a reliable source, especially for material like this (!). In fact, the padding out of "sources" for this picture (mostly blogs and other garbage) is obscuring the fact that one actual reliable source – the local daily of Santa Cruz, CA, circulation 25,000 – has found the Zombie photo compelling and reliable enough to mention in a single sentence (unlike the image I'd like to substitute, which has been found compelling by numerous, excellent reliable sources, who discuss it as a key piece of evidence for NAS). The three objections I raised in this post, meanwhile, remain unanswered.--G-Dett (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, but FrontPageMagazine is not used as a RS; they are merely reporting the words of the photographer, a primary source. And that is supported by a reliable secondary source. If you want to argue against the photo, then explain why it doesn't meet the requirement for "new antisemitism". According to the Sentinel and to the photographer himself, it does. Please show me how it requires additional interpretation on the part of the reader to make the leap between new antisemitism and this photo? —Viriditas | Talk 00:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Not sure I'm following you, or that you're following me for that matter. I've agreed this is sourced, just not very well, and it fares badly next to the alternative I've suggested. Neither Zombie nor FPM is reliable, so I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish by linking them up and marking one primary and the other secondary. Both of them are out. Stacked together, they're out. Sharing a potato sack and lurching towards us three-leggedly they're out. The Santa Cruz Sentinel is, yes, reliable, and we'd know if it weren't, because we'd meet ill-informed surfers in our travels to that part of the Golden State. My point – not there, over here [snaps fingers] – is that the New Statesman cover is excellently sourced, and creates none of the three policy problems I've identified above.--G-Dett (talk) 00:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
First, I looked at your "three objections"; they seem to be based on ignoring other views and preferring your own. For example, the current version of this article has all but eliminated many of the authors of new antisemitism. Natan Sharansky isn't even mentioned in the body of the article, and many of the attacks that were once linked directly to new antisemitism have been removed from the article. This article for example, supports the use of the image, judging it by Sharansky's criteria: 1)Demonization of Israel with comparisons to Nazi Germany; 2) De-legitimizing Israel by saying it doesn't have a right to exist, and 3) Double standards that apply one set of moral standards to Israel while ignoring similar failings of other countries. We can see that image touches on all three and the current version of the article discusses elements of this criteria in more or less the same fashion. As for zombietime, we can see by the article on Wikipedia that its website won Best Photo Blog award in the 2005 Weblog Awards competition, the photographer had an essay published in a textbook, and photos were used in a book by Michelle Malkin. The photo in question has also been discussed by various sources, some published, others online. Using a photo by zombietime in this article is perfectly acceptable, and requires no interpretation on the part of the reader. —Viriditas | Talk 00:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

First, I looked at your "three objections"; they seem to be based on ignoring other views and preferring your own. This is not a worthy response to my points, and frankly I'm a little taken aback by the charge that I'm "ignoring other views"; I've candidly and frontally engaged every single point that's been raised in response to me, only to have my own serious points – which I take some pride in having formulated fairly and lucidly – alternately dodged, strawmanned, or completely ignored, by editors who often as not take the liberty of second-guessing my motives even as they evade my arguments. One thing at a time, now. CJ and I have raised the following serious NPOV objection: in an article about a much-disputed theoretical concept, it is well-poisoning to present an image that purports to be evidence of the phenomenon. It is better to present one of several images that themselves stirred controversy and have been widely discussed by reliable sources as exemplifying the phenomenon, because then we're drawing the reader into the debate by means of a key document within it, as opposed to pushing him to take a side with the most sensational thing we could find while slumming it in the nether regions of the internet. In other words, it's better to have a picture that says, 'this image on the cover of the New Stateman, which intimates that Britain's Middle East policy is a "kosher conspiracy," has been cited as an example of new antisemitism making its way into polite society,' than it is to have a picture that says, 'this image shows how antisemitic today's left has become. This is why, as I explained to Jay, I would oppose a picture of the wall around Qalqilya or an Israeli checkpoint or Hebron under curfew being placed at the top of
Allegations of Israeli apartheid, even though there are dozens, scores of sources linking precisely those things and precisely those images to "Israeli apartheid." Do you have a response, Viriditas, that goes beyond 'preferring' a different view?--G-Dett (talk
) 01:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
The language of NAS includes images, metaphors, and symbols of Anti-Zionism and criticism of Israel. Imagery is used to illustrate the fundamental concept of NAS throughout this article, and can be found in dozens of reliable sources.
Allegations of Israeli apartheid is an analogy; one could argue that some images could be used to illustrate this analogy, but it would need to be strictly supported. I am unaware of any such images that rise above propaganda. New antisemitism, however, is associated with the symbols of antisemitism, as well as those of Anti-Zionism, criticism of Israel, Nazi's, etc. So one could use images of "allegations of Israeli apartheid" in this article as an example of NAS. Images appropriate for the Israeli apartheid article would have to be official in some way. You would have to show that Israel is an apartheid state, which you cannot do. You state that the zombietime image is not self-evidently an example of NAS, but I have shown using Sharansky's 3-D's (as well as other definitions throughout the page) that the image meets the standard for NAS. Why do you claim that it does not? Symbols and imagery are used to communicate NAS. As for your dispute about amateur images, I would suggest that the majority of images on Wikipedia are of amateur provenance. How does this particular image not communicate NAS? —Viriditas | Talk
01:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry Viriditas, but this is not an adequate or meaningful response to my question; please read it again. As for the questions you're posing to me here, each of them has been answered in exhaustive detail on this page. I won't repeat them a fifth or sixth time, but if you read what I've already written and want clarification I'd be happy to provide it. A good place to start would be the exchanges between IronDuke and me.--G-Dett (talk) 02:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm covering a lot of ground in very few words, so I apologize. To respond directly to the one point made by you and CJ that I did not address (having addressed every other one), one first must understand that the NAS has been covered in San Francisco since at least the early 1990s to the present. So you may not be aware that this is evidence that best exemplifies the phenomenon, with San Francisco State University at the epicenter. —Viriditas | Talk 02:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
You've covered very little ground in a great many words; I accept your apology, on the condition that you will, finally, answer the question. The question is, in an article that deals with an abstract, hotly debated and highly contentious claim – whether it's 'new antisemitism' or 'Israeli apartheid' or any other comparably controversial thing – why would we head the article with an image that prejudices the reader ("evokes [sic] an emotional response") and presupposes the truth of the claim? Claims about certain kinds of political imagery are central to the concept of NAS (as you suggest yourself in your post above, albeit in rather muddled fashion); why not present one of the very images that NAS-proponents have made claims about?--G-Dett (talk) 03:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
How does the image prejudice the reader? If the image isn't an example of new antisemitism as defined by the proponents in this article and related texts, then what is it? You still haven't answered that question, so I'll state it again. If this image is not a reflection of NAS, what is it? —Viriditas | Talk 04:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Viriditas, you say that, "you cannot" "show that Israel is an apartheid state" with an image. I would think that something like this contradicts that claim. Nobody can dispute that it shows, vividly, the kind of phenomena cited as evidence for "Israeli apartheid," but equally, many would dispute whether the image is a fair representation of the nuanced, disputed concept of "Israeli apartheid". Opening the door to these kind of images would be a bad bet. I'm not sure I want this guy gracing
Israeli settlements, as suitable as he is, from my own POV, to speak for them. Similarly, neither these folks shouldn't be illustrating Anti-Zionism, nor should these upstanding citizens illustrate Committee of The Jewish Community of Hebron. Given that images are inherently more impactful and emotional than prose, NPOV should, if anything, apply more stringently. <eleland/talkedits
> 02:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm questioning the good faith of editors who claim that "Israel is an arpartheid state" in an article about
Talk:Allegations of Israeli apartheid, but I'm afraid I won't be joining you. Good luck. —Viriditas | Talk
02:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
That's interesting; I question the good faith – and frankly, the literacy – of editors who claim that other editors have claimed that "Israel is an apartheid state" when they haven't. Stay on topic, Viriditas, and don't deviate into polemical discussions and accusations. There is an NPOV/well-poisoning problem which you haven't addressed, except to say that you believe "new antisemitism" is a good solid concept and "Israeli apartheid" is a propagandistic one. Deep breath, and absorb this: it doesn't matter what 'side' you're on. Both concepts are disputed by reliable sources. Images, like any other content on Wikipedia, have to be neutral and encyclopedic. Now go back to my question, and answer it.--G-Dett (talk) 03:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't the one who changed the topic, was I? How abut answering my questions? You know, the ones about the image in this article? —Viriditas | Talk 03:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
You did indeed change the subject. I asked you to justify the appropriateness, in an article about a controversial thesis like new antisemitism or Israeli apartheid, of using an image that presupposes the truth of the thesis, as opposed to one that introduces the reader to materials germane to the debate. You responded by changing the subject and telling me that you like the first of these controversial theses but believe the second one is propaganda.

Your questions have been answered, a great many times. Read. If you're still befuddled, I will answer any question (no matter how redundant) on my talk page. --G-Dett (talk) 04:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
No, I addressed your three objections which you claim remained unanswered, and I've answered all of your other questions. Unfortunately, you haven't shown me the same courtesy, and you've ignored my queries. —Viriditas | Talk 04:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
This sort of filibuster and wilful obstructionism on talk pages is in some ways a more serious problem than out-and-out edit-warring in article space; again, if you've read my posts and truly can't find the parts where I answer your very basic queries, take it to my talk page.--G-Dett (talk) 04:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
You never answered a single question in this discussion, instead insisting that I answer every one of yours. I did, and you didn't. And you accuse me of a fillibuster? —Viriditas | Talk 04:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I've never had a problem with redundancy redundancy, so let me address your queries.

How does the image prejudice the reader?

The "new antisemitism" thesis is that a broad range of views, including views expressed publicly in polite society, are actually cover for, or in some way motivated by, good ol' fashioned Jew-bashing. The image doesn't show views expressed in polite society, it shows a lurid caricature replete with Jew-bashing tropes, and apparently held aloft by some variety of ethno-religio-fascist nutbar. In other words, it introduces us to a disputed thesis by displaying its conclusions.

If the image isn't an example of new antisemitis as defined by the proponents in this article and related texts, then what is it?

First, I'm not sure why our article should begin with an example of new antisemitism as defined by the proponents of the concept. In any case, as explained repeatedly above, it's classically antisemitic imagery filtered through the prism of some kind of extreme afro-nationalist weirdness. The fact that it was displayed at a protest rally has absolutely no relevance. You don't have to book a spot in advance; a great many total nutcases make a habit of "crashing" larger mainstream protests for just this reason.

An aside. I don't know if you've ever been to a protest rally. I have, in fact, I was at an anti-war protest the day before this photograph was taken (actually, I suspect Zombietime got his date wrong, unless there was another rally in SF the day after the
Unitarian Universalists. Nonetheless, I managed to have a conversation with a man who believed that his psychiatrists were using tesseracts to send him hidden messages via the weather, and to score some sweet pamphlets from the Iranian People's Fedai Guerrillas. The logic of "new antisemitism" would describe this as a disturbing convergence of unitarianism, insurgent Persian Marxism, and schizophrenia. And using the Zombie image requires Wikipedia to accept exactly this skewed logic, ignoring the entire RS debate over the concept. Not acceptable. <eleland/talkedits
> 04:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
No, zombietime is correct; the 2003 anti-war rally in San Francisco was held on February 16 - see
February 15, 2003 anti-war protest#Other U.S. cities Jayjg ^(talk)
03:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for directly addressing my concerns. I disagree with you, but I have no problem compromising and removing the image from the lead. —Viriditas | Talk 09:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

There isn't actually an RS debate that the phenomenon exists. There's difference of opinion on what to call it. I've restored the images back to where they were. That a few editors want to continue with
argumentum ad nauseum is not evidence that they are correct, or that there's a new consensus. <<-armon->> (talk
) 09:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

One side has to take the first step towards compromise. I believe the image is acceptable for both the lead and the body, and while I can argue at length in favor of its placement in the lead, and present new evidence in its defense, I have instead chosen to remove the image from the lead in recognition of Eleland's fearless willingness to analyze the situation, unlike G-Dett who could not get past her personal, emotional investment in her position. We need to reward editors like Eleland, because without them, we will never accomplish anything. I am willing to sacrifice my stake in order to encourage good editing. What are you willing to give up? —Viriditas | Talk 09:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Compromise is good, and I applaud the gesture, but I don't think we should make editorial choices based on punishing or rewarding fellow editors, do you? That said, while the image in question appears to be a prime example of NAS, there is maybe only one reliable source that actually identifies it as such, so there may be better choices for the lead and I for one support its replacement in the lead. --MPerel 10:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
If an editor is willing to approach a problem with an open mind then we should reinforce their behavior, regardless of their position. This is one way to eliminate conflict and make progress. —Viriditas | Talk 11:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
OK I understand your position, but there are literally tomes of discussion on this image. Eleland's point you're referring to was, despite here incivility, actually G-Dett's. The problem is that the "polite society" angle isn't, in fact, the "new antisemitism" thesis. The thesis is actually that current antisemistism is based on different pretexts. Where once it was religious, then racial, now it's ideological. The zombietime image much more clearly illustrates this. We're are going to need a lot more evidence for a new consensus to change it. <<-armon->> (talk) 12:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, Eleland appears to be able to communicate more effectively than G-Dett. And regardless of whether he is right or wrong, unless you can meet his objections, the image should be removed. Remember, I support leaving the image in the lead, but I find Eleland's points compelling. —Viriditas | Talk 12:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, well as I've just pointed out, his 1st point was based on a false premise, and his second point was permised on the 1st. Objections met. <<-armon->> (talk) 12:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the objections have not been met. The use of the image in this context is OR; we have still not seen a single RS indicating that this image is an example of "new antisemitism." (I don't think there is any dispute about whether the image is antisemitic, of course). The use of the image in this context, as several have noted above, presumes the dispute over the phenomenon has been settled. It also uses Wikipedia to advertise someone's blog, which is an illegitimate use of the encyclopedia. It is also not from a
WP:RS; it is from a blog, and it is controversial. And to cite examples already cited above by Eleland, would you accept this image to illustrate "Israeli apartheid"? Or do we want these people illustrating Committee of The Jewish Community of Hebron? Taking an extreme fringe phenomenon and putting it in a photo in the lead as the exemplar of an allegedly new trend hurts the credibility of Wikipedia; this should be an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. I remain opposed to the use of this image in this article. I think we can all do better than this. csloat (talk
) 20:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, csloat, regarding your one policy-based objection, NOR, it seems to say exactly the opposite of what you are claiming: see
Wikipedia:NOR#Original images, which says "Pictures have enjoyed a broad exception from this policy, in that Wikipedia editors are encouraged to take photographs or draw pictures or diagrams and upload them, releasing them under the GFDL or another free license, to illustrate articles. This is welcomed because images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy." This picture does not propose the concept of New antisemitism, but, rather, is used as an straightforward example of the issues - just as any other image is used as an example of the article subject matter. Regarding the rest, your claim that it is an "extreme fringe phenomenon", frankly, does not seem credible. As I've pointed out elsewhere, if it had been an overtly racist or homophobic sign this person would have been run out of the demonstration. You may think "we can all do better than this", but many other believe that this image, in fact, is the best possible illustration of the complex issues involved - that this, in fact, is a perfect image for the lead, and that "we can all do better than this" by not attempting to delete or bury it. Jayjg ^(talk)
00:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Your claim that "an overtly racist or homophobic sign [...] would have been run out of the demonstration" is
unverifiable. In any case, this rally took place in a public location (as far as I can tell), so the organizers probably didn't have any authority to eject anyone. Are you proposing that they should have instigated mob violence against someone for waving a crackpot sign? That's about the only thing they could have done, and IMO that would have been worse and more destructive than letting one loon rant. *** Crotalus ***
00:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Not only is Jay's claim in this regard unverifiable; it is so flat out absurd that it makes me wonder if he has ever been anywhere near an antiwar demonstration, or any other kind, left-wing or right-wing, at least in the United States. There are always a few crackpots at any large demo, including the occasionally overtly racist, homophobic, conspiratorial, or just bizarre nincompoops. In fact, zombietime's whole image collection is based on pulling the most outrageous images he can find completely out of their context and using them to demonize the anti-war left through association. Do you really think that the average Ward Churchill fan is also a practitioner of "scrotal inflation"? The number of people supportive of posters like this may be slightly larger than the number interested in scrotal inflation, but this sort of overt racism is still a fringe phenomenon. More to the point, it is not an example of "new antisemitism." It's just the same old stuff that has been directed at us, erm, if you'll excuse me taking a notorious phrase out of context, "from time immemorial".... This is why Rabbi Lerner and others argue that this "new antisemitism" label trivializes and dilutes opposition to real antisemitism by conflating it with political opposition to Israeli policies, and that is precisely the dispute that some here are arguing does not even exist. csloat (talk) 07:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It surprises me that you would both claim my statements are "unverifiable", but then immediately follow them with unverifiable statements of your own regarding what the organizers could have done, whether this was a "crackpot", etc. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Cranks – including those with offensive or ridiculous signs – are not usually ejected from demonstrations (free speech and all). Demonstrations are different from petitions, group letters, or the like, in that it's understood that any ignoramus can join in, which is why enterprises like Zombie's are of little value and hence given so little credence by the mainstream media (outside of Horowitz's rag and the surfers' daily, "local news" section). See Eleland's pertinent nod to this guy. All the same, I am reminded of a pro-Palestinian protest I attended in Boston, Massachusetts, several years ago, in which Johnny Jackass showed up with a "Zionazi" placard, Star of David = Swastika you know the drill, and was immediately asked to leave by the organizers, but alas! not before seventeen photographers had taken his picture.

Incidentally, Jay, how many editors would have to oppose this picture for you to concede that there isn't a "consensus" for it?--G-Dett (talk) 02:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Hey, Jay, I notice that you say "if it had been an overtly racist" sign, it would have been run out of the demonstration. Um, did you notice how the most prominent figure, with the big red devil horns, is labeled "CAPitAliST WHitE MAN?" I'm at a loss for how that poster could be construed as antisemitic and yet not "racist," given that it is clearly appealing to some type of
5% Nation racial theory, whereby Jews are Edomites and Whitey is descended from Esau. And yet somehow, nobody managed to run them out... <eleland/talkedits
> 03:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Eleland, this might surprise you, but left-wing demonstrators are generally none too keen on capitalism, and there is a persistent strain of thought in left-wing circles that the "white man" is responsible for essentially all the ills of the world. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Bauer pdf

I have found an archive of the Bauer pdf. However, since it is not the original source, in this one instance I am using a template so that the original source (which is verifiable on the web) can be maintained. It will be horizontal, and it will appear once as I will be implementing the {{Rp}}. If y'all find it so absolutely abhorrent, please discuss it here. -- Avi (talk) 02:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

We really need some comments here. I know the housekeeping stuff isn't as "compelling" -but help us out. <<-armon->> (talk) 04:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
By all means. I am done collapsing the obvious citations for now. How about y'all take a look and see if you like it. The most dramatic example is that of the British APP report. It is cited nearly twenty times. What do you think? -- Avi (talk) 04:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
So are you just talking about implementing {{Rp}}, not the full template? <<-armon->> (talk) 04:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

For just the Bauer pdf, I used the full template (horizontally), since that allows a link back to the UC Santa Cruz webpage (which is now dead). For all of the others, I used the Rp, which is really a shortcut for <sup>: #</sup>. Take a look. -- Avi (talk) 04:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Looks OK to me...<<-armon->> (talk) 04:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Copy edit

In case this gets lost above, I'm adding again here that I've done a copy edit that got it down from 117 to 84 kilobytes, [36] mostly by removing repetition, laboured points, and things that seemed unclear or not directly related. Take a look and see what you think. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I've changed it a bit more. This is the final version after the copy edit, now 86 kilobytes. I'll try to stop fiddling now. :-) SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

At a glance, the copy edits look good and the article is certainly looking tighter and more streamlined. I have to go over the changes in more detail; they are major enough that it's difficult to take in visually using the compare function. I plan to print out the old version and the current version by the end of the weekend, and study them more closely.
Where more work needs to be done in my view is on the structure of the article. I think if there is to be a "history" section, it should represent the history of the concept – that is, a chronological bibliography – rather than a history of the phenomenon, which is what we have now. What's confusing about our current structure is that the "history" section gives a history of the phenomenon, and then the next section – "Arguments for and against the concept" – includes several accounts which also purport to be histories of the phenomenon. Are we saying that the history we've patched together out of Taguieff, the ADL writers, Wistrich, and Berlet represents the canonical history, and that the histories offered by Lewis and Bauer, respectively, are alternative accounts? I don't think so, but that's the implication. It's all very confusing: The "for and against" section includes histories, while the "history" section for its part includes several arguments for the concept; and we present the "Reports of a left/right convergence" as a subsection of NAS's "history," though it would seem naturally to belong in the section on "political directions."
In and of itself, the section on "arguments for and against" is a real motley. We begin with three thumbs-up/thumbs-down type accounts, where two would seem more intuitive (right?); these are then followed by sections on "third wave" and a "fourth wave," which the average reader will think constitute something sequential, whereas in fact Lewis's "waves" are macro-historical (from the advent of Christianity to the present), and Bauer's "waves" have all happened in the last 50 years; these wave-analyses, in other words, have nothing to do with one another, but our structure invites the reader to wrongly assume otherwise. (And why an entire section for Bauer and his waves in the first place, given that our article isn't even particularly interested in the distinctions between them? "Each wave has had different causes, some of them to do with economic downturns, though the common ground has been an underlying antisemitism, that 'waits to explode when aroused by some outside crisis'" is all we really say about those waves. Does the crisis prompting Bauer's 1968-1972 wave has something to do with the six-day war and the ensuing occupation? Presumably, but we don't say that.)
Here's what I suggest by way of structural revision. Note that it will further cut down repetition and overlap, as well as clearing up confusion. (1) The "history" section should consist of a chronological summary of scholarship on the new antisemitism – who first formulated the concept, who built on and/or revised the concept in light of subsequent events, when and how the concept entered mainstream journalistic commentary, and so on. (2) The section on "arguments for and against" should be divided into two sections, "Arguments for the concept" and "Arguments against the concept." Lewis and Bauer should be reduced somewhat, and such differences between their wave-theories as we find interesting and compelling can be accommodated in the first of these sections, alongside Fischel, Taguieff, and Cotler. "Arguments against the concept" can accommodate Klug, Finkelstein, Raab, and Zipperstein, with proper attention to their respective differences. (3) Then the section on "political directions," into which Berlet's findings should be subsumed. The "rejoinder" (regarding the controversy about NAS on the left) could either be cut down so as to avoid a retread of "arguments against" – or alternately, the entire "political directions" could go after the "history" section but before the for and against sections. The latter solution is rather attractive, in that we could eliminate the "rejoinder" entirely, moving what is compelling therein into the "arguments against" section (where it belongs anyway), and wrap up the "political directions" section with the following concise transition: "The association of anti-Zionism with the concept of 'new antisemitism' is controversial, as detailed by the following section." Then we cut immediately to the arguments for and against.
The TOC would look like this:

1. History of the concept
2. Political directions

2.1 The far right and Islamism

2.2 The left and anti-Zionism

2.3 Reports of a left/right convergence

3. Controversy

3.1 Arguments for the concept

3.2 Arguments against the concept

4 International perspectives, etc., etc.......

--G-Dett (talk) 23:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

My memory is that the history section was started by editors opposed to the concept who wanted to show that it had been used several times in the past (though I'm writing from memory and may have that wrong). It therefore started life about the use of the term, rather than about the idea or phenomenon, though it developed into both. I think it's quite helpful to have it as a backdrop to current usage.

The next section — Arguments for and against — is intended to show the scholarly arguments. Finkelstein should really be there and not in a "rejoinder" or "response" section elsewhere, but whenever I've tried to incorporate the response subsection into the main Left/anti-Zionist section, CJCurrie has reverted me, so I left it in during the copy edit. My preference would be to get all the academic arguments about the concept itself (for and against) in Arguments for and against, and put polemic, and particular examples, in other sections.

I'm not keen on the International perspectives section. My preference would be to cut that right down to maybe a couple of paragraphs. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

but whenever I've tried to incorporate the response subsection into the main Left/anti-Zionist section, CJCurrie has reverted me

That's not exactly right.

The response subsection originallywas in the main Left/anti-Zionist section, some time ago. (I can't recall the exact month and year, and don't feel like searching through the page history right now.)

My concern at the time was that the page layout seemed to suggest (in effect if not intent) that Tariq Ali and Noam Chomsky were included as examples of of the "new antisemitism" in practice. That is to say, our decision to include pictures of these two authors in a section marked "New antisemitism: Political Directions: The Left and anti-Zionism" might have caused casual readers to conclude that both authors were being represented as part of a "new antisemitism phenomenon" -- notwithstanding that they were actually rejecting the concept. I introduced a "Response" subheader to address this problem; SlimVirgin removed it a few times, and I returned it a few times. In retrospect, it's possible that we weren't quite on the same page as to why it was introduced in the first place.

Having said this, I should clarify that I'm not particularly keen on revisiting old battles and would be more than willing to hear out new suggestions. CJCurrie (talk) 09:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

As I see it, criticism should be woven throughout the text, not given a special section. And Finkelstein should be moved to the Arguments for and Against section, in my view. He had his own subsection there before, and it was quite powerful, but I don't know what happened to it. Perhaps I'll take a look through the history and try to restore it. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Would this work? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Slim and CJ, what do you think of my structural proposals? Again, briefly: rewrite the "history" section as a chronological bibliographic survey, simplify "for and against" section by resolving into two broad categories, and bring up the "political directions" section so that it precedes the "for and against" section (thereby eliminating the need for a "rejoinder" subsection, which could then be subsumed into for/against).--G-Dett (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the benefit of starting with the examples rather than the arguments section, but I'm willing to be persuaded. Do you have any interest in opening a subpage and posting your version of the article there? I don't mean perfectly written -- just a rough cut and paste of the section order you were thinking of so we can visualize it better. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I've set it up at
Talk:NAS/draft, if you have any interest in working on it. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)}
20:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I was thinking of doing just that. The only reason I thought of switching the order of the pro/con sections and the political directions section was that it would obviate the need for a "rejoinder" set within the latter; dispute about the political directions of NAS (which is of course the most controversial aspect of the concept) would be taken up by the subsequent section. Anyway, I'll work on the draft.--G-Dett (talk) 21:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Redundancy

Why is there an entry in the "References" section for all the citations brought in the "Notes" section? What is the point of bringing everything twice? A general bibliography is one thing; inappropriate redundancy is just unprofessional. -- Avi (talk) 03:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The Notes section is for citations with page numbers, and for relevant material not included in the text. With a long Notes section, it is hard to pick out the citations, so a separate References section is kept that lists only the publishing information, including ISBNs (but obviously no page numbers). See WP:CITE. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Lead image

As per the arguments I and others have set out previously, I have moved the New Statesman image to the lead, with a caption including two
reliable sources that specifically discuss this particular image in the context of new anti-Semitism. *** Crotalus ***
04:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Well done and well sourced. I for one would appreciate it if those who are reverting to the kooky sons-of-yahweh or whatever image would actually discuss on talk their response to the OR argument and reveal reliable sources that specifically contextualize that sign in terms of "new antisemitism." Thanks. csloat (talk) 08:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Citations

Avi, please stop changing the citation styles. These should not be changed without consensus, according to WP:CITE.
As for the Template:Rp that you're trying to introduce, the page about it says:

This template should not be used unless necessary. In the vast majority of cases, citing page numbers in the <ref ...>...</ref> code is just fine. This template is only intended for sources that are used many, many times in the same article, to such an extent that normal citation would produce a useless <references /> line or too many individual ones. Overuse of this template will make prose harder to read, and is likely to be reverted by other editors (emphasis added)."

The example it gives of when it might be necessary is when a source is cited 100 times. There is nothing like that in this article.
It's very unhelpful to separate the citation from the page number. It clutters the text, it creates more work for the reader, and it's something I've never seen a publisher do. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, can you please explain why you reverted my and Eleland's edits, which had nothing to do with citation style? If you are opposed to changing the picture in the lead, then please discuss this and use an edit summary that accurately reflects your changes. Or did you inadvertently revert further back than you had intended? *** Crotalus *** 07:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Crotalus, as I explained on your talk page, I'm in the process of updating the References section, which is very fiddly work as it involves looking at every ref in the article. In order to separate this work from the image issue, I've created a version with updated Refs and the Zombietime image, and another with the updated Refs and the New Statesman image (see history). That way, you can revert the image without reverting all the other work. :-)

I've not done yet, BTW, just taking a break. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'll leave it go for a day or so. (I posted the first question to you here before the discussion on our own talk pages.) *** Crotalus *** 08:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to copy edit and update the References section, but I'm having to create different versions of each edit, one with Zombietime as lead image and one with New Statesman as lead (and I also created one with both), just to avoid the updating being reverted along with the image. I don't think I can keep on doing that, because it's too much work. It would be appreciated if people who only want to change the image could make sure you don't do wholesale reverts in case you inadvertently remove other material too. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Both images?

As people are fighting over whether to have the zombietime image or the New Statesman one, what's wrong with having both, as here? There's plenty of space, and in fact it looks better because it removes the white space caused by the toc. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Please restore The Jerusalem Post citation you keep removing.[37] It is an important source. —Viriditas | Talk 12:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
It's still there. I've just been combining refs so that they're in one footnote, rather than having multiple numbers after sentences. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
That's a good idea. —Viriditas | Talk 12:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Seems like a reasonable compromise, for those interested in compromise. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: both images. My aesthetic judgement is that the layout with both images doesn't actually look good -just crammed up. Also the New Statesman image was already in the perfect place, heading the "The left and anti-Zionism" section. There is no real dispute about the phenomena existing, however, there is a legitimate argument about whether it has "infected" the mainstream left, and if it has, to what degree. It's a perfect fit there. <<-armon->> (talk) 12:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, as discussed in the article and backed up by sources, there is a real and substantive dispute about the phenomenon existing. Brian Klug and Norman Finkelstein, for instance, both question the usefulness of the term. *** Crotalus *** 13:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Not really. Klug disputes the terminology for the phenomena. Finkelstein simply denies it. Very different positions. <<-armon->> (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Different positions perhaps but both present legitimate and serious disputes about the existence of the phenomenon in the manner you guys are pushing for here. In any case, both images do not belong here. The New Statesman image illustrates the phenomenon discussed in this article without presupposing the result of the dispute. The kooky cartoon image does not illustrate "new antisemitism"; it illustrates antisemitism. And, as everyone who has actually addressed the issue has pointed out, it is a severe distortion of reality to use that image to characterize the mainstream antiwar position, which is being done here. Further, it is an unacceptable use of Wikipedia to use it to advertise someone's personal blog, which is also what is being done here. csloat (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
zombietime's site isn't a blog, it isn't being advertised here, and while it is your opinion that the image represents just plain "antisemitism", the person who made it thinks it's actually anti-Zionist - thus, it is exactly what this article discusses. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Csloat, would you in the meantime accept having both images, the NS one first, and the Zombietime one filling the white toc space? That would at least be a compromise until we can hammer it out, rather than reverting back and forth.

For my own part, I still don't see what's objectionable about the image. This is what people who think there is such a thing as NAS think it looks like. Opponents of the concept look at that image and see ordinary antisemitism. And that's what the article is about -- the perception of different concepts within the same set of facts -- so in that sense it's a perfect illustration. The link to zombietime's page can be removed too if that would help to settle things. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the link to his website so at least that's dealt with, if no one objects. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I can agree to having the two images up until this discussion is hammered out; I have no desire to revert back and forth either. I think it's good that you removed the link as that part was a major problem. I think your comments miss the point, however; the problem is not just that two sides look at this poster and see different things. The problem is that the side claiming there is a new antisemitism sees the poster as representative of a larger trend in the left/antiwar camp/whatever whereas it is clearly and objectively a fringe extreme. The problem is that the article seems to argue for an equivalence between this poster and criticism of Zionism or Israeli policy in general, and that is precisely the problem that opponents of the concept are arguing against. Using the poster here presupposes that the proponents have already "won" that debate. csloat (talk) 21:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing to that. I've edited the page to include both images at the top, and I've reduced the size of the zombietime one a little so it's not so prominent. Hopefully this'll be okay with the others too.

I take your point about it appearing to argue for an equivalence. I wonder if people really would see it that way though, but I do see what you mean. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Unless I am misreading Jayjg's comments above, it appears that is exactly the way he sees it; if so, it's probably a safe bet others will see it that way too. csloat (talk) 07:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted this to the status quo ante, since somebody has seen fit to reject it outright. Why not have both images right at the top - one on the left and one on the right? Lobojo (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I moved the poster image down further into the article. While it may have removed white space made by the TOC, it broke up the paragraphs, which is worse. Also that image is an extreme example and just as the photo journalist blog accuses the media of doing, focuses on a close-up of an image at a anti-war rally, to skew things out of context. This does too, because at that rally there were other poster signs around that one which was a much broader message...it was a bunch of knuckleheads at a protest rally. It may have anti-Semitism symbols, but the point of rally, just like any anti rally is to shock. Not unlike those at an anti-abortion rally showing dead babies. Wikipedia needs to be careful not to act like the media, and use sensationalized images to synthesize a concept. Please do not let Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, behave as journalism, especially irresponsible journalism. ←Gee♥Alice 23:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Lobojo, why did you use the anti-war rally image to the beginning on the article again, when there is opposition to its inclusion, even at all? Please move it down further in the article. This project is not shock journalism, but supposed to be an encyclopedia. That image was used at an anti-war rally. It was not protest against all Jews, but Zionism and the war between Israel and Palestine. There were images of Bush as the devil and was compared to Hitler at that rally too, as protest against the Iraq war. Don't you see by having this image in the lede, is to place undue weight, and take out of context what that image was supposed to represent? Those people who rally go so far as to commission artwork to make a point by aggrandizing and inflaming. Wikipedia should not stoop to that, IMO. ←Gee♥Alice 23:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Random break

We have page protection for two weeks, during which we could try to sort this out. I'm in favor of retaining both images (and maybe even adding a third, all reduced in size, as a sort of collage). Having at least two images has the advantage of taking the focus off the Zombietime image, which might satisfy its opponents (and the link to his website has also been removed), but at least it's still there, which should satisfy those who want it. Both sides would get something of what they want, in other words, which is the nature of compromise. Any thoughts? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I support that layout as a sensible compromise. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Humus, how are you seeing the current images with your browser? I saw them side by side, but then I clicked on footnote five to check the page number given for the Bernard Harrison book, and the Zombietime image dropped below the other one, so it's now straddling the first section. I've never seen clicking on a footnote cause an image to move before. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Weird. You're right, it does shift if you click the footnote link. My last edit intended to have them side by side in the whitespace. If people like it that way, the issue of it shifting can likely be fixed with different code. Looks like a bug. <<-armon->> (talk) 03:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, looks like a minor bug. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It happens if I click on either of the images too. :-) SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I support deleting the zombietime image per the arguments above. It simply isn't an accurate or appropriate illustration of the concept discussed on this page. csloat (talk) 02:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Leaving aside the issue of reliable sources and copyright and all the other things that have been raised (that people will think it's typical of anti-war demos etc) -- what is it about the poster that makes you think it's not an accurate illustration of what's discussed in the article? Where is the mismatch, in your view? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, the question is a bit unfair, since you're "leaving aside" part of my answer, but to answer without referring to those things, it is not an accurate illustration of "new antisemitism" as defined in the article. It is simply an illustration of antisemitism, and the association of it with the article presumes the debate about new antisemitism to have been settled already. csloat (talk) 05:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'm not sure how you can say it's not an accurate illustration. It shows a lot of the issues that are mentioned in the article -- classic antisemitic motifs, anti-globalization, anti-Zionism, demonization of Israel, anti-Americanism. It's a very vivid illustration of those things.

Okay, your first choice is to remove the image entirely. What would your second choice be? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

How about keeping both images, but move the Zombietime image to the "Left-Right Convergence" section. That's appropriate for what the poster expresses. (It has left-wing and right-wing aspects, but that may be more confusion than convergence.) Don't put two images side by side; that looks terrible in Wikipedia formatting. We could probably drop the Nazi "octopus" posters, too; that's "old antisemitism". --John Nagle (talk) 07:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I just want to make the point that the two images are not intended to be side by side. The compromise proposal is to have the NS image at the top, with the Zombietime image underneath, like this. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree about the octopus posters. The zombietime image might make sense in the left-right convergence section if explained differently than the current caption. But I'm not sure why we should struggle to link the image to this page. Is there something people think that image specifically adds to the page? Or to the general discourse about the alleged phenomenon of a NAS? I fail to see it, and I think the several objections that have been raised to the inclusion of the poster on this page are quite serious. csloat (talk) 08:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Csloat, this has been explained at length above. The picture best captures most of the themes outlined in the definitions of New antisemitism. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
That's not convincing Jayjg. I explained at length above, and again here, that it simply illustrates antisemitism. Combined with all the severe problems raised about the image, I think the minimal advantage of using it is heavily outweighed by these objections. csloat (talk) 06:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I understand that you don't find it convincing; I don't find your arguments convincing, as the image quite obviously illustrates new antisemitism, particularly in the sense that some would see it as simply anti-Zionism. The advantage of using a nearly ideal image obviously outweighs any objections. Now, let's move beyond bald assertions, and work towards real compromise - what do you say? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Of course the advantages of using an "ideal image" outweigh objections, but this is called begging the question. There are 17+ editors (new ones every day) who don't find this an ideal image. There is in other words a consensus problem.--G-Dett (talk) 04:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I already have said my piece on this; I agree with a couple of the compromises offered so far that move the image out of the lead. The best option is to delete it entirely and have no image in the lead, or to use the new statesman piece in the lead. Again, I have explained at length what is wrong with this image, and you have not responded to these arguments other than to say the image is "nearly ideal." Yet you haven't offered a single shred of evidence to support that; only assertions that border on the absurd. (E.g. your most recent comments in the section "Reliable Source?", which illustrate exactly the problem that SlimVirgin posited was unlikely -- that people would look at the image and assume it was somehow representative of anti-war rallies.) All I can guess about that is that you have really never been to an antiwar demonstration and you get all your information about it from zombietime's photos. Anyway I'm not going to get into a back and forth with you; it has become pretty clear that you haven't much to stand on. csloat (talk) 04:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

We can compare it with the (rather more peacefull) issue of Image:Ramblinwreckengine.jpg. The issue was if the engine is a Ford Model A engine or a later Ford Pinto (I think, the discussion seems to be lost) engine. With no source for either it coulsn't be settled. // Liftarn (talk)

Perhaps no images would be something we could reach consensus for? // Liftarn (talk)

Aesthetically speaking, I think the two images next to each other looks poor. As for reaching a consensus, Liftarn has a good idea! The challenge with this article is that "new anti-Semitism" is a term used by many people to mean different things. It's a trivial case in comparison, but we have the same problem with
New prog -- any term of the form "new ..." runs into similar problems. I feel it is important for this article to reflect that diversity of views around what "new anti-Semitism" is used to mean, as well as the subsequent debate about whether the perspective offered by different uses of the phrase are useful or not. Not having a lead image avoids the problem of how to illustrate that diversity in a single image, while the various images can be used lower in the article as appropriate to different sub-sections. Bondegezou (talk
) 11:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Astonishingly, three of the people opposed to having the zombietime image in the lead have now proposed a "compromise" of removing the zombietime image from the lead. I understand exactly why Liftarn and Nagle proposed this, but I don't really understand how you feel this addresses the concerns of the many editors who feel it is the ideal image for the lead. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Jayjg -- I'm completely unconvinced by most of the arguments adduced by the Zombietime image opponents (as can be seen at great length above), yet I wouldn't insist that it be absolutely the first image in the article (though it would be useful for it to have a moderately prominent role). AnonMoos (talk) 12:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Correction: three of the people opposed to having the zombietime image in the article at all have proposed a compromise of moving it down the page. Astonishingly, an editor who counts words instead of reading them doesn't realize this.[38] Astonishingly, an editor steadfastly opposed to compromise pretends that none is on offer.--G-Dett (talk) 04:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
G-Dett, I find your statement both aggressive and baffling; it seems mostly to be an attack on me, and a highly inaccurate one at that. I don't think it helps the tenor of the discussion here at all. How about if, going forward, we all restrict our comments to discussions of article content, and focus on achieving some sort of compromise acceptable to all parties, what do you think? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree with the premise of your proposal. First of all, I'm not sure I agree sarcasm=personal attack. If it does, however, I'm certain I don't agree with you that you that your own attacks are permissible while those of others are not. Choose your mode of discussion; others will reply in kind. What do you think of Bondegezou, John Nagle, and Csloat's compromise proposal? I think it's a promising one, not least in how it tried to elevate the tenor of this discussion.--G-Dett (talk) 05:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
As should have been clear, I don't think it is a real compromise, in the sense that it is yet another proposal to remove the picture from the lead. I think there are better real compromises. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Uhhh, such as?? A compromise that places the picture in the lead, perhaps? This is really not the forum for sophistry, Jayjg; you are presenting an obviously false choice here. I see a few compromises offered here so far - one which replaces this image with the New Statesman image; a second which deletes both images entirely and goes with no image at all in the lead; and a third which keeps the image you are fond of but moves it out of the lead to a more appropriate place and gives it more context. The problem is you have an absolutist position here -- nothing appears acceptable to you other than putting this image in the lead because of the absurd claim that it is "nearly ideal." We're going to have a hard time compromising with that. csloat (talk) 04:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Csloat, it's very odd that you would claim that only outcomes that remove it from the lead are "compromises". What about having both images in the lead, for example? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Jayjg, it is very odd that you would say that taking both images out of the lead is not a compromise but putting both images in the lead is a compromise. csloat (talk) 04:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Not so odd, really; rather, quite logical. See below. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
After seeing below, I see you are talking in circles. csloat (talk) 02:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg, what about you providing a reliable source (no original research) that says that what is shown in the Zombietime image is an example of new antisemitism? // Liftarn (talk)
As you are already very well aware, there are a significant number of people who are of the opinion that antisemitism originating from within a left-wing context during the last forty years or so is ipso facto new antisemitism... AnonMoos (talk) 10:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Liftarn, please review the lengthy discussions on exactly this topic above. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I'm aware that some editors have said they think it's a good example of new antisemitism. No real evidence for it have ever been brought up. You can't just invent things out of thin air, it needs to be backed up with reliable sources. I thought you knew that. // Liftarn (talk) 12:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I've reviewed them myself and I'd like to see an answer to Liftarn's very reasonable question as well. csloat (talk) 04:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Did you review this page:
Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 December 16#Image:AntiWarRallyFeb162003.jpg? Did you review Iron Duke's comments above? Jayjg ^(talk)
03:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
That's not an answer to the question. csloat (talk) 07:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it is.
fallacy of many questions. It does no-one any good to pretend that these questions have not already been answered multiple times; nor does it do any good to insist that the questions are valid when others have stated that they are not relevant. You may not agree with the answers, but that doesn't give you the right to keep asking the question as if it hasn't been answered. Jayjg ^(talk)
01:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Ahem; in all those words I still don't see an answer to the question. (other than an assertion that it has already been answered). I don't find this approach helpful. csloat (talk) 02:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Csloat, do you recognize that many of the comments made in previous discussion on this very topic address the specific issue of
WP:V and reliable sources? If so, why must these comments be repeated? Jayjg ^(talk)
02:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I recognize that you keep asserting that. To date you have indicated not one specific comment, nor have you answered the very real, persuasive, and recent objections to this image. Again you should probably read your own link on this strategy. csloat (talk) 07:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

A compromise by definition answers at least partially to the concerns expressed by the other party. Adding a second picture to the lead doesn't do that in any conceivable way, which is why it's a non-starter. You might as well say, "here, csloat, let's compromise. We'll keep Zombie in this article, and I'll give a barnstar."--G-Dett (talk) 04:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Thanks for making that clear. csloat (talk) 07:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Let's see, people who don't want the image in the lead try to get it deleted, then when that fails, try edit-warring it out of the lead, then try substituting various other images for it in the lead. Then, when someone offers the compromise of having both one of the other images in the lead alongside the zombietime image, they insist that only "compromises" that remove the image from the lead are real "compromises". You might as well say "I'll agree to any compromise, so long as I get my way". Jayjg ^(talk) 01:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Ummm, see above comment from G-dett, Jayjg; it may help explain what you missed. I really don't find your tone helpful here. It amazes me that the image has been up on the page for months now, and those of us who think it does not belong here (for very good reasons that have yet to be addressed by you) agreed to leave it up while the discussion is ongoing, you can complain about "edit-warring." You are the one demanding to get your way and refusing to compromise. csloat (talk) 02:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
In fact, the issues you raise have all been addressed multiple times, the very good reasons for keeping the image have been stated quite clearly, I have already suggested compromises, and I haven't been edit-warring on this article - in fact, I think my only edit to it in the past six months is a minor fix to a formatting error. In any event, the matter is now before mediation, so this discussion should probably be saved for that. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually the issues do not seem to have been addressed at all. If they have been, it would be real gentlemanly of you to provide a link or to simply summarize. You have not offered any compromises; you have simply suggested that no matter what happens you think the picture must stay in the lead. This is the opposite of compromise. csloat (talk) 07:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
What are the issues you think have not yet been addressed, and why do you think we should discuss it here, rather than in the mediation? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
None of the issues I brought up above have been addressed. Nor several of the issues brought up by others. We can easily develop a list - start with (1) no reason for this image has been forwarded, (2) no
WP:UNDUE; (6) it is an inaccurate representation of the antiwar movement in san francisco, masquerading as an image of its mainstream; (7) or, for those with some perspective on what the "left coast" is actually like, it equates the concept described in this article with a fringe radical group rather than with an accepted norm (as much of the article claims NAS is about; (8) it simply is completely inaccurate - it represents "antisemitism" rather than any kind of "new" antisemitism. There are some more but we could start with those 8 points to begin with. As far as why we should discuss it here rather than elsewhere - this is the talk page of the article. If you know of a better place let me know. I have no objection to mediation, but in either place, here or there, it will really take a willingness on your part to actually discuss the issues. csloat (talk
) 10:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
That's a good summary of issues for the "anti" side. I've added you to the mediation page; there's no point in having these discussions in two different places at two different times. You can sign up for the mediation here. I look forward to having a vigorous discussion there. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Nature of compromise

The problem we have is that everyone is sticking to entrenched positions. If we're going to find a compromise, it means that everyone has to shift a little. Perhaps people could say what their second and third choices would be, rather than focusing on the outcome they'd prefer the most. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I am ok with not having an image in the introductory section at all; moving the zombietime image down, provided it is presented in the context of a confluence of otherwise disparate political movements. And then that we all agree to keep it, so that none of those who agree to this compromise supports any requests for deletion. --Leifern (talk) 18:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

My favoured position is no lead image and no use of the Zombietime image. My second choices would be some lead image that is demonstrably about NAS; and moving the Zombietime image lower down. Bondegezou (talk) 15:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I would also suggest that the image caption stick to facts rather than speculation. // Liftarn (talk)

Which parts of which caption were speculative, Liftarn? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
"Photographed at a 2003 anti-war rally in San Francisco" (no reliable source backs up that claim), "mixes anti-American, anti-Zionist, and anti-globalization imagery" (original research). // Liftarn (talk)

My own first choice is Zombietime in lead, NS in the left/anti-Zionism section. Second choice, both in the lead. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
My first two choices are the same. I haven't seen others first and second choices yet. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

agree with SV. Zombietime belongs in the lead, as it is the best illistration of the subject I have seen so far on wikipedia (or in the commons). Yahel Guhan 03:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

My favoured position is a lead image that is demonstrably about NAS and no use of the Zombietime image. My second choices would be no lead image and moving the Zombietime image lower down. Leifern's proposal may be a viable compromise (though I have some doubts, in light of objections raised by MPerel and others). CJCurrie (talk) 03:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

As I wrote above, I think the Zombietime image is a fine example of what advocates of the concept of "new antisemitism" are talking about, and it belongs in "Reports of a left/right convergence", which describes growing antisemitism in the anti-war movement (or maybe increased tolerance of antisemitism in the anti-war movement). Since the lede describes a debate about whether there is such an animal as "new antisemitism", I think it might be best to leave it without any image — because no image illustrates the debate. If something has to go on the right side to balance the TOC, put the antisemitism template there. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Leaving aside everything else, I believe moving the antisemitism template from the "European Union" section to the lede would constitute an improvement. CJCurrie (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

If we leave the Zombietime image in the lead, it gives the impression that "New antisemitism" is a fringe concept associated with San Francisco based wierdos. Probably not what the proponents of the image intend. --John Nagle (talk) 07:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Not to mention that as far as I know new antisemitism has not been described as a crossover between actual antisemites and pacifists. // Liftarn (talk) 07:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

References section, safe at last

Wow, Lobojo, very nice. Thank you! :-D SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. It makes the page much more navigable (cutting out about half the "scroll length") though it doesn't solve the kbs. But that isn't a problem, the original reason for limiting page length is becoming less relevant and certainly should not lead to the deletion of chunks of great info. 90kb is no big deal if the topic is a major one like this, look here to see how long some pages get these days. If Paul McCartney can have 115, this should be fine. The main reason for these guidelines is the "readable prose" point, and this article only has about 50kb of that, all the rest is refs and so on. Wikipedia:Article size. Lobojo (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand; Why was this done? See Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Scrolling_lists. —Viriditas | Talk 09:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
AFAICT, scrolling lists break printability, among other problems. Crum375 (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Problems with Zombietime image

Crotalus horridus makes an articulate case as to why the image does not belong in the article at all much less in the lead based on NPOV, V and NOR. And eleland additionally makes a good point about why we shouldn't willy nilly grab up any illustration offered up by cranks just because it fits what we'd like to portray. Any illustration of New Antisemism that is not backed up by a reliable source as being an illustration of New Antisemitism probably qualifies as original research does it not? The problem with talk of compromise to allow original research to placate one side of the discussion is that it's a major breach of Wikipedia's core principles. --MPerel 18:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. The reason that I favor the New Statesman cover is that we have multiple reliable sources that do explicitly discuss it in the context of new antisemitism. Thus, it passes the tests of
WP:NPOV, especially taking the captions into account. *** Crotalus ***
19:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly what I've been saying too, and no one has refuted these rather incontravertible points.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely with these points. csloat (talk) 04:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Here from the RFC, and have to agree with this assessment. --Haemo (talk) 03:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell of this debate Wikipedia policies are ignored so that some editors can promote their own conspiracy theories. // Liftarn (talk)

I pointed out many months ago that the inclusion of this image on the photographer's website is no evidence that the placard was ever carried at a rally. This is an article about a very complex issue in political discourse. Quite rightly, the sources are restricted to those of serious commentary, and I don't see any reason to relax that for the images. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I see a quite different problem. All your objections have been addressed and resolved, even to the point of one editor conferring with an attorney. Yet they keep repeated over and over again, without even an acknowledgment of the responses. Now we are seeing talk of "some editors" engaged in "conspiracy theories," when nothing of the sort is alleged. My interpretation is rather that some editors find the truth in this image so disturbing that they can't deal with it. --Leifern (talk) 14:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
It's not that it's disturbing; it's that it's a preposterous caricature of the antiwar left that has nothing to do with the topic of this article. These objections have been neither addressed nor resolved, and I don't see how talking to attorneys will help. An attorney cannot make an image into something it is not, or make a source reliable that is not. csloat (talk) 16:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Its use in this article was never intended to portray any kind of typical or representative view of the "antiwar left" -- see my comments dated "02:00, 2 January 2008" above for specific discussion of this point. In any case, I'm not sure how relevant "antiwar" really is in the broad picture, since the reported incidents started picking up in 2000 and the first part of 2001 (culminating, of course, in the infamous 2001 official United Nations Durban Conference for the Promulgation and Promotion of Racism) -- NOT in 2003... AnonMoos (talk) 02:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It is an image of a poster that conflates multiple themes, including globalism, anti-Americanism, and antisemitic canards. It therefore represents well the complexity of the issue. As for it being "preposterous" and "a caricature of the antiwar left," it is nothing compared to the evil in many of the caricatures we have to omit from here due to copyright issues. Try counting the number of times Israel or Israeli politicians are compared to prominent Nazi figures in the mainstream political press, and you'll see that this is a tame version of what's out there. --Leifern (talk) 19:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
It does not "represent well the complexity of the issue"; it mashes a bunch of themes together in a way that makes no sense. Where does it illustrate "new antisemitism"? It simply illustrates antisemitism. I'm not sure why youre bringing up other posters; the question at hand is whether this poster accurately or fairly represents the antiwar left in a way that can be described as "new antisemitism"; it fails to do so on all counts. As for your other point about Israeli politicians being called nazis -- comparing Israeli politicians to Hitler (or Bush or Mao) has nothing to do with any of this -- are we really talking about a new anti-semitism or are we just talking about an old opposition to Israeli policies? If the latter, this is a strong refutation of the concept described here. csloat (talk) 20:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
There are a significant number of people who are of the opinion that antisemitism originating from a predominantly left-wing context within the last forty years or so is ipso facto new antisemitism... AnonMoos (talk) 02:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Then they should edit the article to say that any old antisemitism becomes "new antisemitism" simply by being associated with someone who is allegedly on the "left-wing." Then we simply need a WP:RS that indicates that the moron carrying the sign in the photo is a "left wing" person. When that is done we can talk about including this photo in the article. csloat (talk) 02:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
The Zombietime photo is not actually being used as "evidence" to establish anything -- it just happens to be a conveniently-available exemplification of a type of incident which has been documented as occurring multiple times on other occasions (see my second comments of "03:18, 31 December 2007" above). AnonMoos (talk) 03:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I checked your comments from that date and time and they don't "document" anything; they just defend zombietime by saying nobody has proved him wrong. That is not what is at issue here, of course. Re-read my comments directly above, if you will, and provide the evidence to support the above, and please indicate how you would edit the article to define "new antisemitism" as something like "old antisemitism plus leftism" or whatever. Thanks! csloat (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The way Wikipedia is supposed to work is that your opinion or my opinion doesn't matter. We should go with what reliable and verifiable sources say. // Liftarn (talk)
You were the one who wrote - mere lines above this, that "As far as I can tell of this debate Wikipedia policies are ignored so that some editors can promote their own conspiracy theories." So I suppose you can throw around your theories, but I can't? --Leifern (talk) 19:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
The difference is that I don't post them in Wikipedia articles claiming them to be an accurate description of reality. // Liftarn (talk)

I think that it's fair, considering that zombietime also has wider shots showing the sign and some of the people around it, to say that verifiably it did appear at a protest rally of some sort. Beyond that, it's impossible to verifiably say anything meaningful. I mean, Zombie didn't even get the date right! He claims the picture was taken "on Saturday, February 16th, 2003." That date was a Sunday. There's your reliable source... <eleland/talkedits> 16:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Still not necessarily carried during the rally. It can quite easily happen that people arrive at a rally and begin to unpack placards, unfurl banners, but are speedily asked to leave by the organisers. I don't have a clue whether or not that was the case with this placard, but the onus is on those who want the image included to justify it as an illustration of NAS. I have no doubt whatever that this is an antisemitic image but am far from convinced that it is a good illustration of the NAS phenomenon. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Mediation request

I have proposed a mediation on this issue. See Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/New antisemitism. If you wish to participate, please sign up. I have listed a number of the most active participants in the discussion, but not everyone, so you may (or may not) wish to add your name to the list. *** Crotalus *** 05:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

In principle, I am in favor of mediation. But I honestly can't say there's been sufficient good faith effort to resolve this through constructive discussion. --Leifern (talk) 19:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
It's been in contention since September 2007, at least. We need to do something that will lead to resolution. --John Nagle (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Arabs ARE semites

How can it be anti-semitic? This article is just WRONG. When does Islam accept discriminating others? And this is probably just to add further to Islamophobia. Arabs themselves are Semites. It says right here on Wikipedia! Why can't it be added to or merged to persecution or discrimination agaisnt Jews? THIS ARTICLE IS ENTIRELY FALSE. LOTRrules (talk) 13:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

First off, your tirade is mostly relevant to the main Antisemitism article, and not specifically to this one. This article will only change its terminology in the (unlikely) event that the main Antisemitism article does so first.

Secondly, the word "Semites" (as a noun form) is in fact rarely used at all in modern accurate scholarly terminology (except to refer to certain ancient tribes). There are definitely
Semitic languages and people who are speakers of Semitic languages, but the word "Semites" itself has extremely little ascertainable valid meaning when referring to modern peoples (except in the eyes of a few old-fashioned allegedly "scientific" bigots
, who still believe in the idea of unchanging archetypes of the Nordic, Alpine, Mediterranean, and Semitic so-called "races").

Thirdly, it is true that the term "antisemitic" is not in fact strictly etymologically correct (since Jews are hardly the only group with a historical connection to Semitic languages and/or their early speakers), but that's due to this word's specific origins -- since "Semites"=Jews was one of a whole series of mock-grandiose pseudo-elevated (but really slightly condescending) terms which were used in the late Victorian period to refer to various ethnic/religious groups that were felt by White Anglo-Saxon Protestants to be somewhat alien to themselves -- such as "Celestials" used to refer to Chinese, "Romans" for Italians, "Sons of Erin" for Irish, and a number of others. During that period, the term "Jew-hating" was a little too harsh to be used in mixed company when Podsnap's innocent Young Person was present, so that "anti-Semitism" (originally coined by non-Jewish Jew-hater Wilhelm Marr in 1879) was accepted as a genteel polite euphemism for drawing-room use.

However, at this point the above is all pretty much water under the bridge, since the word "antisemitism" has obtained a fixed and established meaning over the last 120 years of usage in the English language, from the
General Assembly resolution 3379 of 1975. If you want to coin a word for hatred of Arabs, then by all means please do so -- there are plenty of theoretically valid possibilities, such as "Arabophobia", "Misaraby", "anti-Arabism", etc. etc. But please don't try to redefine the accepted term for hatred of Jews, because the problem of hatred of Jews is not the same as the problem of hatred of Arabs. And you certainly don't help your cause by seeming to support the old tired propaganda line that Arabs can't hate Jews because Arabs are "Semites" themselves -- something which is not only factually false, but which hardly any thoughtful and intelligent person believes. AnonMoos (talk
) 16:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

And? Homophobes hate gays, but are not afraid of them. Words are often used in other ways than what their original meaning suggests. // Liftarn (talk)
Wow, I actually agree with Liftarn! Guess there's a first time for everything... However, I have to point out that the special etymological problem with the word "homophobia" is not the possible fear/hatred discrepancy (which is exactly the same for all -phobia words, and is a broadly-accepted convention, since sometimes hate does grow out of fear), but rather the fact that literally (based on Greek roots) homophobia should mean "fear of sames", i.e. "fear of people like oneself". AnonMoos (talk) 16:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Who coined this term? I mean I seriously doubt people from Islam did... And in the English language the term anti-semite still remains that if you call anyone of semitic background in discrpency a derogative term you are in fact being anti-semitic...so how can a term for hating Arabs and a term for hating Jews NOT be the same? Semitic languages = Semites... and are you also encouraging that anyone make a word to describe the hatred of Arabs? I mean here on Wikipedia? ANd what do you mean "scientific" bigots? LOTRrules (talk) 16:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Did you read what I wrote directly above?? German non-Jewish Jew-hater Wilhelm Marr is usually credited with coining the term in 1879. For further info, see the main antisemitism article, which I already linked to. Wilhelm Marr probably didn't care too much about Arabs when coining the word, because Arabs were totally irrelevant to the daily life experiences of the vast majority of middle-class residents of northern European cities in the year 1879 -- unlike Jews. And no, it is most definitely NOT the case that "Semitic languages = Semites", as I already explained in great detail above. And the terms for hating Jews are different for the terms for hating Arabs because there are many people who hate Jews without hating Arabs, and many other people who hate Arabs without hating Jews. When there are two such distinct realities, then it's not usually useful to use only one single term to cover both indiscriminately... AnonMoos (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, first time for everything. I agree with AnonMoos (though not on the question of whether to use giant red slanting fonts to hammer home one's points). No one calls anti-Arab bigotry "antisemitism"; they call it "Islamophobia," even though lotsa Arabs aren't Muslims. Meaning is defined by use and by convention, not by etymology. Otherwise "innocent," "ignorant," and "agnostic" would all be synonyms, an impecunious person would have no sheep and a sincere one would have no wax, while the "ambitious" would be those walking around in circles, and an "inspired" poet would be an inflated one – or worse, one with a bad case of wind.--G-Dett (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The related terms that have developed over time are "antisemitism" ("s" not capitalized to recognize original false "racialized" premise), "Islamophobia", and "Arabophobia".--Cberlet (talk) 19:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

So overall you're saying that this article is INCITING Islamophobia? What about Neo-Nazi's? "Neo" meaning new? The prefix tells us so! So should they be in this article? Or do should somebody create a new article entitled "Neo-New Anti-Semitism? I feel this article plays too much concentration on Arabs and Islam. For thousands of years Jews have been persecuted and so have Arabs and so have Christians and so have Bhuddists and so have...(well you get my point...). Why not include this in the fucking article? Why has somebody ONLY concentrated on Islam. Christians have hated Jews and made it public in their own nations and some haven't even apologised yet. I feel that this article is (again) concentrating on Arabs too much...THIS ARTICLE IS NOT NEUTRAL. LOTRrules (talk) 18:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Dude, you really need to start reading things with a little greater care. This article does not in fact focus excusively (or even predominantly) on Arabs and Jew-hating and/or Muslims and Jew-hating -- we have completely separate articles
Islam_and_antisemitism devoted to those topics. This article only really discusses Muslims in the context of the alleged convergence between the strange bedfellows or unlikely political alliance of extremist Leftists, extremist Islamists, and extremist Rightists. If you want a general broad overview of religious persecution as a global phenomenon throughout history, then start by going to the Religious persecution article (this article has a much narrower and more specific function). AnonMoos (talk
) 22:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You are a saint, AnonMoos, but that doesn't change the foact:
WP:DNFTT. Slrubenstein | Talk
19:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm hardly uniformly saintly, but I have had previous experience in debating upholders of the shoddy "Arabs can't hate Jews because they're also Semites" propaganda line outside of Wikipedia. And he's only a troll if he's insincere. AnonMoos (talk) 22:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
A troll? I'm mearly discussing the article! I have to question the hell out of everything to get the answers I want! And this is a real debate I've had for in a couple of months! So please forive me for being a troll(!)...And I think it is hardly propoganda...I bet you're from the extreme right youself the way you speak and think of others opinions...are you trying to make me look like an exttremist? insincere? look at yourself... LOTRrules (talk) 22:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh lordy, not this old chestnut again! We have a common usage, this is just a game. Lobojo (talk) 22:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear LOTRrules, the bit about "Arabs being Semites too" is really past its sell-by date, and is not being taken seriously by any other editor to this page (much less being supported by anyone whatsoever). The sooner you assimilate and comprehend this (and stop casting unnecessary and irrelevant ideological aspersions on others), the sooner you might possibly be able to contribute to constructive and productive conversations about improving the article New antisemitism... AnonMoos (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

LOTRrules is a troll because (1) this page is for discussing improvements to the article, and to discuss improvemetns to the article, one needs to know something about the topic. (2) a good-faith editor at a minimum would read the relevant articles and the Wikipedia article on anti-Semitism provides a clear explanation as to why anti-Semitism refers to hatred of or disrcimination against Jews, and not just anyone speaking a Semitic language. (3) see
WP:DIS. PS: Two more reasons why he is a troll: (4) he changes other people's comments, which is forbidden, and (5) he ignores other people's good faith efforts to explain things to him. It is he evident and unceasing unwillingness to listen to others, despite his own demands to use this page to push his POV, that make him a troll Slrubenstein | Talk
12:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

LOTR not a troll (AGF) but discussion need not go further. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact that some people have attacked me seems inappropriate, personal attacks are low, but the meaning is still clear Arabs & Jews = Semites, hatred of Arabs & Jews = anti-semite. I'd still use it in it's PROPER CONTEXT LOTRrules (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

LOTR, just find a reliable definitional source (dictionary, encyclopedia etc) that states that general usage of the term "anti-Semite" = "hated of Arabs and Jews." this should easily put an end to this gnarly and anfractuous pleonasm and the iniquitous suggestions that trolldom is afoot. Boodlesthecat (talk) 17:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Write?, fine. LOTRrules (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has become absurd. The reason this page title is spelled "antisemitism" is to recognize the fact that in the pseudoscience of "racial eugenics" in the 1800s, Arabs and Jews were classified as "Semites." However the term "antisemitism" has that specific spelling to recognize that "anti-Semitism" could be misleading, but that the term "anti-Semitism" comes from an anti-Jewish political movement. This is not a new issue, and the terms "antisemitism" and "Arabophobia" are now used by scholars to make the distinctions clear. I agree with Slrubenstein that this is a settled issue. Ignorance is understandable, but to endlessly debate an issue based on ignorance is a waste of time.--Cberlet (talk) 21:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree on this. I let my temper flare a little. This article is confusing in a sense and since I was taught in school that semites included Arabs I have stuck on that rule. My bad. I'd just like to say I'm glad it was sorted out. I've done the research and everything else. The term has in places changed in meaning and some places haven't. This debate still is controversial. Next time I hope we all keep a cool head. LOTRrules (talk) 23:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Zombietime's status during mediation

With reference to S6J7's remarks on the article page, I believe our best course of action is to leave Zombietime in place, with the tags attached, while mediation is in progress ([39]). Valid questions have been raised about both the validity of the poster and the accuracy of our own description beneath it. If the image is to be left in place (for the time being), the tags should be retained as well.
Please note that I'm not planning to make any further edits to the page on this regard (for now, at least), and I hope others won't use this as an excuse to remove the tags through the brute force of edit warring. CJCurrie (talk) 20:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, that didn't take long. CJCurrie (talk) 20:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
We've been over this issue many times, with the usual protestations, documentation, ignoring the documentation, then repeating all over again. It is misleading to say that we are somehow leaving the tags in place. We've agreed to leave the image, because there is no valid basis for removing it, and the tags are amply documented. --Leifern (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) On the Mediation talk page, a sensible argument is made that the "point of the mediation is to help us to decide how to proceed" with the image. Making changes to the image or its caption pre-empts the mediation. Let's leave it alone. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You wrong, Leifarn. This image is in mediation precisely because there is substantial dispute about it -- to say "there is no valid basis for removing it" is flat out false. There is a valid dispute at hand here, and in fact someone counted about 18 editors who agreed that it should be removed -- certainly a new consensus compared to the 6 or 7 voices who have recently spoken in favor of retaining this image. Leaving the image on the page is totally pre-empting the mediation; it should be removed from the page completely until the mediation ends, or, barring that, it should be marked with a caption that indicates it is under dispute. To leave it on the page undisputed is to completely undermine the mediation process. csloat (talk) 23:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a vote. Leave the image alone. Your arguement sounds like one of those common "until we resolve the dispute, we do it my way" arguements. It is nothing more than demanding, which in my opinion should be ignored. Yahel Guhan 04:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I haven't demanded anything; your suggestion is insulting. I'm not saying do it my way -- in fact I explicitly offered an alternative that leaves the disputed image where it is. But you've already declared your intention to ignore my arguments, so I guess that means you didn't bother to read them. If you do decide at some point to choose an alternative to willful ignorance, you can go back over what I wrote above and you will see that I am not saying do it my way at all -- I am simply saying it is destructive to display the image without any note as if the dispute is completely settled. It makes a mockery of the mediation process. csloat (talk) 05:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD?

Has anyone ever proposed this article for deletion? It's unencyclopedic and a soapbox magnet, just like
talk
) 11:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it was proposed for deletion, some time ago, and the consensus at the time was to keep. However, we should continually keep in view the whole purpose of having an article on this subject. I don't think the raison d'etre of this article has been seriously debated since History of antisemitism was turned from a timeline into a proper article. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

New Antisemitism is a controversial concept, but it's a concept which has a high degree of prominence in relevant political circles, and which has recieved much discussion since the late 1960's, so it's certainly worthy of an article on those grounds. AnonMoos (talk) 12:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Marvin; this article is an unencyclopedic soapbox for both sides. csloat (talk) 21:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose deletion: If there are elements of the article which are unencyclopedic, please feel free to discuss them in order to improve the article. However, -- as AnonMoos points out -- the term "New Anti-Semitism" has received wide enough use, support, opposition, and debate that the term and topic certainly warrant an encyclopedia article. ← Michael Safyan^(talk) 22:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose deletion. What makes this topic "unncyclopedia" aside from the fact that it is controversial true, but not the same thing)? Lot's ob Wikipedia articles are magnets for soapboxing. you know what? We delete the soapboxing. We are still left with an article. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Casting aspersions by miscategorization

It seems to me that indiscriminately lumping together "New antisemitism" into the quasi-derogatory category Category:Political neologisms -- along with terms such as "Axis of evil", "Freedom fries", and "Outposts of tyranny" -- may be an attempt to cast doubt on its credibility by indirect means. I don't know the exact date when "New antisemitism" gained prominence in English-language usage, but the underlying concept has been debated ever since the late 1960's (or substantially 30 years), and the phrase was fairly well established in the English language at least by July 20, 1992, when it was featured very prominently in a New York Times opinion-page piece. Furthermore, there's not the slightest evidence that the phrase originated as a slogan or clever buzzword concocted by a speechwriter or public relations consultant -- as opposed to arising organically out of the back-and-forth of political discussions... AnonMoos (talk) 19:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

You might want to read neologism. There's nothing derogatory about the category. "Dixiecrat" is a neologism and it is certainly much older than "new antisemitism." Of course the "neo-" of neologism indicates it should be relatively "new," but so does the "new" of "new antisemitism." However old the phrase is (and 1992 is pretty recent in these terms) I think you have a hard time arguing that it is new enough to not be simply called "antisemitism" yet too old to be called a "neologism." csloat (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
However, I suspect that the category was added to this article in order to derogatorily characterize the term "New antisemitism". Furthermore, the contrast with "Dixiecrat" perfectly illustrates the point I made before -- "Dixiecrat" was coined as a self-consciously cutesie journalists' buzz word and jargon term (along the lines of
Stix Nix Hix Pix), intentionally devised for the purposes of conveniently fitting in 1948 newspaper headlines, and for showing off the cleverness of the journalists who used it. There's no ascertainable evidence that "new antisemitism" ever had such an origin... AnonMoos (talk
) 17:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The category describes itself as suited for "terms that have entered political jargon since approximately 2001; their first use may be earlier, but their widespread use should not be". According to the lede, "The term [new antisemitism] has entered common usage to refer to what some writers describe as a wave of antisemitism that escalated, particularly in Western Europe, after the Second Intifada in 2000, the failure of the Oslo accords, and the September 11, 2001 attacks." That fits the criterion for the category. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the term "new antisemitism" was fairly well-established long before 2001, among those who were interested in such matters (as seen in its prominent placement in the July 20, 1992 New York Times opinion-page piece) -- though of course it did regain a certain degree of greater prominence beginning in late 2000. If part of the purpose of adding the Political_neologisms category to this article was to imply that the concept of New antisemitism originated after 2001, then that's another strong reason for removing the category from this article. Frankly, I don't see any real resemblance in any particularly relevant characteristic between the two phrases "Freedom fries" and "New antisemitism", so to me the burden of proof is on those who want to add the category to this article to demonstrate that there is some meaningful similarity between "Freedom fries" and "New antisemitism". AnonMoos (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
That burden has been more than met. One opinion piece in 1992 does not make a neologism "well-established." Freedom fries has nothing to do with this. csloat (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
You know, it doesn't particularly advance constructive coooperation and collaboration that I've presented some evidence for my position, but you haven't presented the slightest evidence for your claims, but merely proceed by pure unsupported assertion. "Freedom Fries" is one of the most prominent articles in the category Political neologisms, and your actions here with respect to this issue have certainly done nothing to allay my concerns that one of the possible motivations for adding the category Political neologisms to "New antisemtism" was to ridicule it by indiscriminately lumping it together with terms such as "Freedom Fries" (with which it has almost nothing in common). AnonMoos (talk) 13:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I have presented evidence and analysis, as has Malik -- it is you who is making assertions at this point. "Dixiecrat" is another political neologism; what is your point? There is nothing that says that these things need to be related to each other. Please re-read my comments above, and perhaps read neologism if you would like to learn more -- once again I emphasize there is nothing derogatory about this description. csloat (talk) 15:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Time for an RfC? Possibly also time for addition to list of lame edit wars?--
talk
) 15:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It's up to those who support adding the category to the article to: --

1) Show that the phrase "new antisemitism" shares anything meaningfully significantly relevant in common with self-consciously cutesie and too-clever-by-half terms such as "Dixiecrat" and "Freedom Fries", which were deliberately crafted for effect in order to become part of headlinese journalistic jargon, or by politicians' speechwriters and public relations consultants.

2) Provide some proof (beyond mere unsupported fact-free dogmatic assertions) that the term was almost unknown before 2001 -- especially since I've given specific evidence to the contrary.

As far as I'm concerned, they've so far failed to accomplish either task (or even come close)... AnonMoos (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
(1) What they have in common is that they are political neologisms. That has already been established. Whether they are "cutesy" or "clever" has nothing to do with it.

(2) You have not given specific evidence on this point at all. The best you can do is one article in 1990. Dixiecrat is 50 years old. Again, we've already been through this. (and on point #2 the burden of proof is on you; you have not met that). Please refrain from edit warring on this again. Thanks! csloat (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to add, my most recent edit summary was completely inaccurate; it should have just said "rv per talk"... My web browser wants to autofill every field with anything I typed earlier that looked similar; I should have caught it before I hit "save page." Sorry about that! csloat (talk) 20:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
What's the problem? Category:Political neologisms is for "terms that have entered political jargon since approximately 2001; their first use may be earlier, but their widespread use should not be" (emphasis added).

According to this article, "the term [new antisemitism] has entered common usage to refer to what some writers describe as a wave of antisemitism that escalated, particularly in Western Europe, after the Second Intifada in 2000, the failure of the Oslo accords, and the September 11, 2001 attacks". In other words, since approximately 2001.

In other words, the fact that "new antisemitism" may have been used in the 1840s or the 1970s doesn't matter. It didn't gain widespread use until the 21st century, which is why it is a political neologism according to the definition in the category. Many of the articles in the category are about very serious matters, Islamism, Dhimmitude, and Eurocentrism among them. There shouldn't be any negative connotation associated with the category. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Which
reliable source says that "New antisemitism" is a "political neologism"? Jayjg ^(talk)
05:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Where does
WP:V discuss categories? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs
) 07:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Read the second sentence of the policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh. The same sentence that discusses images. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Are you saying that
WP:V isn't applicable? Jayjg ^(talk)
01:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll say it, if no one else will. JayJG is asking for a negative proof. A neologism is a term that HAS NOT previously been in common use. Why would a reliable source bother to verify that some term that someone just made up has not previously been in common use? Show me a reliable source verifying that "new bullshit" is a term I just made up for this sort of nonsensical argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.54 (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Since I previously put this article in category of neologism (reverted) based on this article's first sentence and then recently made an annoyed edit based on Jayjg's assertion that "new antsemitism" is 100 years old (reverted), this might be the place to ask: If true the phrase is 100 years old, shouldn't that be in the article? (Did I miss it?) And if phrase really just widely used since 2001 - when i first heard of it - should not people stick to their guns about categorizing it thusly? Also it is interesting Jayjg says that there must be a reliable source calling it a neologism. Is that also true for
Jewish Lobby, Jayjg?? (Since you constantly assert that phrase is a neologism, even though it plainly has been widely used for longer than "new antisemitism.") Just curious :-) Carol Moore 12:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

The 100-year-old references probably aren't that relevant, since the words "new" and "antisemitism" could happen to occur side-by-side for various reasons in various contexts. However, it is highly-relevant that the concept of new Antisemitism began to gain some prominence when a number of political groupings of "First World" leftists semi-suddenly turned against Israel (often in a quite vituperative and vitriolic manner) in the late 1960's after the 6-day war of 1967. Note that in the data below, the number of occurrences almost triples in the 1970-1980 period compared to the 1960-1970 period. For this reason (and also because the phrase "new antisemitism" seems to have rather little in common with the very recently coined self-consciously gimmicky jargon buzzwords which populate Category:Political neologisms), the category doesn't seem to be very appropriate in this particular case. AnonMoos (talk) 15:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
What we haven't seen is a table of mentions of "antisemitism". You are proposing the following chain of causality: Israel engages in Six-Day War, political Left in the West condemns Israel, writers identify some or all expressions of the condemnation as "New Antisemitism". I remember the first two occurring (of course the condemnation was not completely confined to the Left) but not the third. If there are a number of references illustrating this usage between 1967 and 2000 then we will have to rewrite the lead, because the definition is currently to Jonathan Sacks and the involvement of radical Islam is a key element it. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Intro

I have removed the citation, among several, in the first line listing Yehuda Bauer's essay. It does not mention 'right-wing/left-wing' groups (his analysis is classist, referring to manicured elites in the commentariat), refers to a 'fourth wave' of Antisemitism, and has an approach that does not warrant its inclusion here, IMHO.Nishidani (talk) 13:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Data points on usage

I noticed this discussion and thought I'd offer a few data points for your consideration. I've just done a trawl of Google Books and have found uses of the term dating back to as far as 1860. It seems to have had a different meaning for many years - "A distinction is commonly made between the "old" anti-semitism derived from religious sources, and the "new" anti-semitism based on racialist thinking" (The Journal of Jewish Studies, 1948). I've found equivalent usages from as recently as 2000. After about 1950, some used the term to refer to "the new anti-semitism of the Soviet Union", to quote a Commentary article's title. In the 1960s through 1980s, some sources use the term in relation to hostility to Israel: "anti-Zionism has become the new anti-semitism", "the new antisemitism of equating "Zionism as racism""; this is particularly prevalent from the mid-1970s onwards. However, many sources continue to use it to make the religious/racialist distinction I described above. The usage described in this article predominates decisively in books from the 1990s to the present day. The raw figures for usage are as follows (bear in mind that this will be distorted somewhat by the lesser availability of older sources):
<1900 - 5 works using the term
1900-1910 - 7
1910-1920 - 7
1920-1930 - 8
1930-1940 - 21
1940-1950 - 42
1950-1960 - 45
1960-1970 - 33
1970-1980 - 86
1980-1990 - 98
1990-2000 - 183
2000-2008 - 318

In relation to whether the term can be described as a "neologism", it actually appears to have been coined over 100 years ago with a significantly different meaning. The usage has plainly shifted (or perhaps been re-invented) in recent decades. I'm not sure that the apparent re-invention of an old neologism could really be said to make it a new neologism (and it seems to be stretching a point to describe a 100-year-old term as a "neologism" in the first place). -- ChrisO (talk) 09:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure you can show that "new antisemitism" as a phrase in itself (not as in two words that happen to be next to each other, as "the new antisemitism hailing from the Soviet Union") was used in the same way this far back, or even as recently as 1990. The article is pretty clear that 2000-1 is a turning point as far as the term coming into common usage *as a term used in this manner*. When does "new antisemitism" as a phrase in itself take on a particular meaning and explicit definition? If it is 1990, does that definition change in 2001? Again, I think the article is pretty clear on this, but perhaps your research has reached a different conclusion. But I think it is OR to string various uses of the term together without referencing particular articles about "new antisemitism" as a specific phenomenon, or (preferably) articles about "the debate over the new antisemitism" and the like. csloat (talk) 09:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

IIRC, according to Finkelstein, campaigns around alleged "new antisemitism" have been a cyclically recurring feature, every time Israel gets into hot water. I've heard of neologisms and protologisms, what's the word for a -logism which dies, then gets brought back? When we find it, we can make a new category; new antisemitism belongs alongside truthiness. That's what my gut tells me, anyway. <eleland/talkedits> 10:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

So your motivation for adding "Category:Political neologisms" to this article is to ridicule it by comparing it with a self-consciously cutesie too-clever-by-half intententionally contrived jargon buzzword like "truthiness"? AnonMoos (talk) 08:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not what he's saying. If you read the article, "truthiness" was in fact a pre-existing term, unknown to Colbert before he reinvented it with a different meaning. I think Eleland is arguing that it's analogous in that respect to "new anti-semitism". -- ChrisO (talk) 10:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that was what I meant. Sorry all, if the attempt at humour caused upset. <eleland/talkedits> 05:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Which
reliable source says that "New antisemitism" is a "political neologism"? Jayjg ^(talk)
05:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Uh, I hate to butt in here, but this is just so egregiously ridiculous, I have to. If a term is a "neologism," it by definition has no past history of use. And, having no past history of use, on what basis would a reliable source have described it as a neologism? If articles have been deleted in the past on the basis that they are neologisms, and if a term can be considered a neologism only if a reliable source has said that it is a neologism, can a record of even a single instance of an article being deleted based on a reliable source describing it as a neologism? Seems like "new bullshit" to me - find a reliable source that describes THAT as a neologism! In reality, if a term gets to the point of being described as a neologism by a reliable source, it probably is no longer a neologism - "internet" once was a neologism; so was "software." Once someone outside of a group of committed Wikipedia editors and pro-Israeli polemicists start using the term "new antisemitism" - and particularly if they use a term to note that it is a neologism that has come to be understood to mean something more particular than its two words in combination - then "new antisemitism" can clearly be considered a phrase in general use, and not just a neologism. To argue that any term can only be considered a neologism if a reliable source has called it such stands reason on its head. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.54 (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

And can a phrase, as opposed to a word, be a neologism anyway? -- ChrisO (talk) 08:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes. csloat (talk) 08:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
And this one obviously is not - unless, of course, you've found a
reliable source saying it is. Have you found that yet? Jayjg ^(talk)
04:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Already discussed above - the evidence is in the article itself. Please do not address me further, Jayjg, as I generally find your comments and tone insulting. Thanks. csloat (talk) 17:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't see where
WP:V discusses "evidence in the article itself"; could you point it out please? Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk)

If there's no evidence for the usage of a term before the last 20 years or so then it's a neologism. What does the Oxford English Dictionary say about it? Itsmejudith (talk) 18:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't list the term. It only lists "antisemitism", which it defines as as "Theory, action, or practice directed against the Jews". Interestingly, its oldest citation for the term dates only to 1881, 21 years after the oldest citation I found in my Google Books research; the most recent citation dates to 1941, and it doesn't cover the current usage of the term. You might also want to consider
Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms, which identifies three criteria for a neologism (I've added numbers for ease of reference): "Neologisms are words and terms that have (1) recently been coined, (2) generally do not appear in any dictionary, (3) but may be used widely or within certain communities. How many of these three criteria apply in this case? -- ChrisO (talk
) 23:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This is entertaining. Of course it doesn't list the term, and of course the phrase has been used before. What else would people in the 1890s call changes in discrimination against Jewish people as a result of increasing Eastern European immigration? Or as a result of "social darwinist theories". If its different from old antisemitism....

Dont waste your time reforming this article, people, it's one of the worst examples of - and indeed some of the worst - OR in the 'pedia anyway. (At a seminar recently, I was amazed when it was mentioned by a fairly well-known political scientist as a reason why Wikipedia was untrustworthy.) In a project that judges notability by google hits, the most unfortunate fact is that articles on common phrases will always survive an AfD and then will be built up by OR. (Look at Holodomor denial, with its lovely paralleling of Holocaust denial, and absolutely no reliable sources on the concept. This is hardly an exception, except that more people get upset about it. Relata refero (talk) 08:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, there are far, far worse examples; for example, the article that was created in "retaliation" for this one,
WP:CAT G7, and rather badly at that. Jayjg ^(talk)
23:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
What makes you say that's worse? It's also bad, but why worse? Let me guess... you agree with this one and not that one? Ah. Really, Jay, why do you bother. Relata refero (talk) 09:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

AoIA was created in retaliation for this article - how do you know? And why didn't you mention that in your evidence for either Arbitration case regarding the article? <eleland/talkedits> 00:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Csloat, the phrase still quite obviously fails
WP:CAT G7. It's quite obviously "not self-evident" that this 100 year old phrase is a "political neologism"; please stop edit-warring against both the guideline and common sense. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk)
02:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Common sense tells us that while new antisemitism could have been used by many writers in many contexts since the word antisemitism was coined, New Antisemitism in its current usage - the usage defined in this article! - can only date as far back as the time when responses to political Islam became an urgent topic for discussion in the Western media. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, your "common sense" seems to be historically incorrect, since the topic of "new antisemitism" in the modern sense in fact first gained urgency when the "New Left" of the 1960's conspicuously turned against Israel in the aftermath of the 6-day war of 1967 -- which was over 10 years before political Islamism acheived much prominence... AnonMoos (talk) 10:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
If you think antisemitism comes in waves, as many people do, e.g. Bauer, then every wave is in a sense "new". Similarly, I'm sure we could find references to "new homophobia", "new racism", "new misogyny" etc. But none of these merit a WP article. NAS does mainly because of the Chesler book and the adoption of the phrase by other writers who find that it sums up their view of an aspect of contemporary international politics. Sacks' definition is made primary in this article- did you want to change that? Itsmejudith (talk) 10:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
The idea that antisemitism can "emanate" from all three of the far-left, far-right, and extremist Islamists does not mean that every instance of new antisemitism must involve all three, or even two out of three. AnonMoos (talk) 15:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
In which case I am not sure how you would distinguish between NAS and antisemitism tout court. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
As the article points out, the concept first began in the 60s, and by the 70s it had already been fully articulated. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Jay, do the post-2001 writers on the "new antisemitism" cite the 1960s and '70s writers?--G-Dett (talk) 02:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know. Why would it matter? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
It would help to establish that "the concept first began in the 60s, and by the 70s...had already been fully articulated" (your claim) – i.e., that "new antisemitism" is an integrated concept developed over decades by a lineage of theorists, rather than an original-research
synthesis
performed by Wikipedians stitching together discrete bits of writing from the last 50 years describing phenomena contemporary to the writer using the phrase "new antisemitism" as a generic or ad hoc /nonce phrase, rather than as a specific theoretical concept rooted in other writings.

It is clear that the post-2001 writers use "new antisemitism" as a specific theoretical concept shared with – and rooted in – each other's writings. But it seems to me that much of the stuff from previous decades (not to mention the "100-year-old example") represents discrete bits of writing using the phrase in an ad hoc or generic way. Examples of these contemporary post-2001 writers citing how the concept "first began" (your phrase, and yours only at this point) in previous decades would dispel my deepening doubts about this article. Doubts which center not only on its technical compliance with original-research policy but also on its basic intellectual soundness.

Articles about concepts designated by phrases of this variety – New + [generic abstraction] – must be handled carefully, lest we end up with false or fanciful genealogies. Using Google Books, one could almost certainly find references to a "new wave" of French filmmaking well before Godard, Truffaut, et al; or to a "new historicism" well before
folk etymologies in an age of data-mining. And I am ever more suspicious that this is precisely what much of this article represents.--G-Dett (talk
) 14:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't make any sense at all of the idea that the concept of NAS as defined in this article was already fully articulated in the 1970s. Without the presence of political Islam then it could not have been the same concept. Here is a parallel. In the 1960s in the UK there was a wave of building universities. These were called "the new universities" (
University of Lancaster, University of Sussex etc.). Then in the 1990s a lot of institutions that had been called "polytechnics" were redefined as universities (De Montfort University, Manchester Metropolitan University, University of the West of England). The previous usage had been forgotten, so the former polytechnics became known as "new universities". Ideas do not remain "new" forever. They have to be redefined. Itsmejudith (talk
) 23:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The authors are using the same terminology, and covering pretty much the same points - convergence of left and right, injection of anti-Zionism into the mix. Pierre-André Taguieff, writing in the 21st century, ties it back to papers by Givet in 1968 and Poliakov in 1969. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Taguieff's book has one footnote (p.160) that mentions Givet and Poliakov, neither of whom we discuss in this article. We have no sources connecting uses of the generic phrase "new antisemitism" by Epstein, Forster, Raab, and Wistrich in the 70s and 80s to the 21st-century concept/debate. That genealogy appears to be a Wikipedia
novelty
. The only secondary source that comes close to making this connection is Norman Finkelstein, and he does so derisively; i.e. his point is not to trace the intellectual genealogy of a "concept" but rather to expose it as a prefabricated rhetorical trope, one that pretends to be "new" by effacing its history as a standby of pro-Israel spin.

If Finkelstein is the only secondary source connecting these bodies of work, then we have to depend upon his account of the connection between them.

Berlet is a minor researcher who does not discuss the "new antisemitism," and our extensive use of his work here is a continued violation of
WP:NOR.--G-Dett (talk
) 13:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Berlet says he does discuss New antisemitism. Taguieff discusses "la nouvelle judéophobie" (which is French for "New antisemitism"), and links it back to those articles, so I don't understand your objection. As for other early references to "New antisemitism", in Terms of Survival: The Jewish World Since 1945 Robert S. Wistrich refers to a 1984 article by Per Ahlmark title "Sweden and the new antisemitism" in Leo Eitinger (ed.) The Anti-Semitism in Our Time which is about "the hostile attitude of the Swedish media to Israel, Zionism, and Jewish topics in general during and after the Lebanon war". As for Forster and Epstein, their book is titled The New antisemitism, it covers the same topics that 21st century authors cover, and we don't really need a "secondary source" tying "The New antisemitism" to "The New antisemitism", just common sense. Jayjg (talk) 02:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know that Chip Berlet is a Wikipedian as well as a minor researcher, and that User:Cberlet has stated on this talk page that his real-world writings are relevant to this article and should be cited at length, even though they never mention "new antisemitism" and even though none of the published writers on the "new antisemitism" ever cite, credit, or discuss him. I, User:G-Dett, disagree with User:Cberlet on this point.

I am fine with (briefly) mentioning the writers Taguieff cites in that single footnote on page 160 of his book. The writers he cites there are not the writers in question – Epstein, Forster, et al.

Common sense may speak different languages depending on who it's talking to, which is why secondary sources tracing intellectual genealogies are so important in an article covering the history of an idea. What we have here is intellectual history as it's conceived by you, a Wikipedian; this is classic
Neoconservativism deals with that curiosity appeals to my idea of common sense. "New antisemitism" is "the concept that a new form of antisemitism is on the rise in the 21st century," but the phrase appeared here and there decades ago. I would like this article to deal with that fact with a measure of common sense comparable to that shown by the editors of Neoconservatism.--G-Dett (talk
) 00:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Cberlet, with all due respect I think he knows better what he is talking about than you. Regarding your other points, first, let's deal with the "21st century" bit - it doesn't seem sourced, and appears to be incorrect. That's easily enough dealt with, I'll remove it. Now, regarding "New antisemitism", and the requirement that secondary sources must mention all previous secondary sources to prove they are relevant, let's take a hypothetical situation. Let's say someone were writing an article on the topic of, oh, the "Jewish lobby". Would we insist that all sources that use the term refer to previous sources that use the term? If not, how could we ensure that they all meant the term in the same way, and were referring to the same thing? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Whether Chip Berlet knows what he's talking about is a separate question, regarding which I have yet to offer any opinion.
WP:NOR issues and/or debates about the relevance of a given writer's work are not magically settled when the writer becomes a Wikipedian and weighs in on the talk page. I'm sure you understand this principle. For example, if User:John Mearsheimer
showed up and said he had the "new antisemitism" in mind in this or that chapter of his book on the Israel lobby, even though he never mentioned it by name, I'm fairly certain this wouldn't fly with you.

The problem is not the lead. The problem is that no reliable source offers the intellectual genealogy of the "new antisemitism" that you're endorsing here. It's an original-research synthesis, and a rather amateurish one at that.--G-Dett (talk) 01:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

A chronological narrative summarizing sources discussing a subject is not an "intellectual genealogy", nor is it an "original-research synthesis". Jayjg ^(talk) 02:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You're begging the question – whether these sources are "discussing a subject," i.e. the same subject, is precisely what's in dispute.--G-Dett (talk) 02:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought we dealt with that, though. When someone is talking about "The New antisemitism", he's talking about "The New antisemitism". Jayjg ^(talk) 02:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Really? So the 1908 writer who talked about "The New antisemitism" was also talking about "The New antisemitism" because he was talking about "The New antisemitism" and therefore was talking about "The New antisemitism"? When you've stepped down from your merry-go-round of tautology and are steady on your feet and ready to think and talk normally again, try to respond to the problem at hand.--G-Dett (talk) 02:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett, you're slipping into that
abusive language again. Control yourself. Regarding the point itself, of course, as I said previously, it must be combined with some common sense; if they talk about the same thing, and call it the same thing, then they belong in the same article. The standard you are suggesting exists neither in theory/policy nor in practice. The hypothetical "Jewish lobby" case, which you didn't address, points out the end-result of the claim that all secondary sources must refer to other secondary sources in order to be used. Jayjg ^(talk)
02:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Jay, you're slipping into tautologies again, which is why I teased you. It was mild and it was deserved. WP:CIVIL is not a guarantor of your right to type condescending tautologies and not get your fingers burned. Now, I thank you for yet another iteration of your opinion that these writers are "talking about the same thing," but that is not a satisfactory or even meaningful answer to my question. I have articulated very specifically the problem with conflating nonce use of the phrase "new antisemitism" decades ago with the specific term "New antisemitism" which emerged in the last six or seven years. Judith has further pointed out the timebound nature of the word "new," and the absurdity of assuming that what was "new" in 1970 is what is "new" in 2008. You have not responded to our carefully articulated posts; instead you avoid them, and continue to type up your little tautology.--G-Dett (talk) 03:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to disengage here until you re-gain control of yourself. Discuss article content, not other editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, do let us know when your latest cycle of insult-condescend-whine-pout has run its course.--G-Dett (talk) 09:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

<------- As a co-author of the recent update of the entry on Neo-Nazism in the Encyclopedia Judaica, (minor as that may be to some), I think I am qualified to say that after the first Gulf War I was writing about the convergence of antisemitic tropes discussed in this Wikipedia entry. I agree with Jayjg on this point. I do not agree with every proponent of the concept of the New Antisemitism thesis, but I do assert that I can correct false assumption about what I write about.--Cberlet (talk) 02:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You are qualified to say this, in the same sense that User:John Mearsheimer, as the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, would be qualified to say that he had the "new antisemitism" in mind in this or that chapter of his book, even though he never mentioned it by name and even though no one writing on the "new antisemitism" has ever cited or discussed him.

The original-research problem created by citing his work would not be dispelled, however; nor is it dispelled in your case.--G-Dett (talk) 02:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think G-Dett can correctly object to a history section which isn't provided in reliable sources as original research; on the other hand it's probably an unusual enough situation that a specific policy or precedent would be hard to establish. Ideally, we would be able to have a direct discussion about whether a "History of new antisemitism" is the correct and most supported way to approach the topic. Considering what we have is well written and informative, in spite of some potential issues, I suppose my suggestion would be if G-Dett can write a better and more supported overview then she could make the case for replacing it. If there are other smaller changes that are being discussed, perhaps the same approach would help. Just a couple thoughts. Mackan79 (talk) 02:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Is the
Anti Defamation League considered to be a reliable source ? In 1974, ADL national leaders Arnold Forster and Benjamin R. Epstein published a book called The New Anti-Semitism (New York, 1974) : Albion moonlight (talk
) 10:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks AM. It doesn't actually matter if it is a reliable source in general. The important thing here is that it is notable enough to possibly be a step in the establishment of "new antisemitism" as a concept. What I'm concerned about is that the authors might be using the term in a completely different sense to the current usage, i.e. as it is defined in this article. We need to have a look at this book and see how the authors define the term. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

In 1982, ADL national leader Nathan Perlmutter and his wife, Ruth Ann Perlmutter, released a book entitled The Real Anti-Semitism in America (New York, 1982). In 2003, ADL's national director Abraham Foxman published Never Again? The Threat of the New Anti-Semitism (San Francisco, 2003), where on page 4 he states: "We currently face as great a threat to the safety and security of the Jewish people as the one we faced in the 1930s—if not a greater one. Perhaps these sources may also be useful in establishing a time line pursuant to the concept of The New Antisemitism. Albion moonlight (talk) 11:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The idea of the "New Antisemtiism" emerged when relatively conservative Jewish leaders began to argue that the contemporary threat came not just from the political right, but the political left, due to a switching of sides in the Left toward the Palestinians after the 1967 Six Day war. I debated the Perlmutters on this point on a radio program in the 1980s. The term "New Antisemitism" was developed to mark a distinction from the typical right-wing variety that Forster and Epstein initially wrote about. With the rise of political Islamic militancy, that new factor was incorporated into the term by some, and led others to start using the term to describe the new alliance. I am not suggesting that this information is sufficient for a Wikipedia entry (the relentless abusive arrogance of G-Dett aside), but I am suggesting that the demand that editors must find a precise text stating a chronological sequence that has already been demonstrated repeatedly on this discussion page is a waste of time. So the history should state something like this:

The term "New Antisemitism" was developed around the early 1970s to mark a distinction from historic right-wing bigotry advanced by nativist antisemites, religious bigots, and neonazis in the United States. The new focus was on sectors of the Political Left which had switched to supporting the Palestinians after the 1967 Six Day war. With the rise of political Islamic militancy, this new factor was incorporated into the term by some, and led others to start using the term to describe the new broader alliance. The term is now used to describe an international point of view. Different authors stress different elements when using the term "New Antisemitism," while some reject the term altogether.

Something like this would be a sensible solution.--Cberlet (talk) 14:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Cberlet, I think this could be towards an improvement. However, you should recognize that it's difficult for editors to neutrally discuss your work as part of the article at the same time as you take part in the discussion. Referring to G-Dett's comments as "relentless abusive arrogance" when she attempts to do so is not in my view helpful. Mackan79 (talk) 14:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

And not holding editors accountable for abusive inflammatory language in discussion posts is also part of the problem. When I see it, I call it. To pretend otherwise is part of the problem here on Wikipedia.--Cberlet (talk) 15:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, and I suppose I'm a little more forgiving since I often find that I'm so kind to Jayjg that he stops responding anyway (of course, he says he responds where he thinks a response is warranted). Not that I disagree, just as long as we're sensitive to the other balance that I raised as well. Mackan79 (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The comment about "relentless abusive arrogance" is completely out of line. I've read the discussion above and see nothing even approaching that in G-Dett's comments (which is unfortunately a lot more than I can say for at least one of her interlocutors). I appreciate the desire to "call it like you see it," but when you make the wrong call, as in this case, I think an apology is due. csloat (talk) 20:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No, actually, it was G-Dett's comments which were "completely out of line", as were yours. I appreciate the desire to "call it like you see it," but when you make the wrong call, as in this case, I think an apology is due - in this case, to both me and Chip. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Chip, if you call it when you see it then we have at least one thing in common. I'll take your references to "G-Dett's relentless abusive arrogance" if you'll take mine to Jay's relentless empty tautologies and to your relentless self-aggrandizement and blurring of the lines between real-life punditry and Wikipedian soapboxing. In fact the three of us could start a Wikipedian club called the Relentless Room, where we would wear enormous Mexican wrestling masks and body armor and ram into each other until Consensus Happens, or a commercial break, or Jayjg cries WP:CIVIL! and hides behind his own leg, whichever comes first.
In the meantime, the rough outlines of your revision show promise. The business about the left "switch[ing] to supporting the Palestinians after the 1967 Six Day war" should probably be rephrased, as should the phrase about "the new broader alliance," which presents one of the most contentious claims of NAS-theorists as if it were an accepted fact. I am not sure what "The term is now used to describe an international point of view" means.--G-Dett (talk) 19:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for having a sense of humor--and proving my point. Perhaps we should start a "relentless arrogance" club. What graphic do you suggest? Anyway, I am digging up some actual cites, which litter the library where I work like snowflakes at a polar icecap. More soon. As for "international," I meant the claims about the NAS appear to begin in the U.S. and spread to Europe an beyond.--Cberlet (talk) 00:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Always happy to prove a point even if it isn't mine. You know who I think might might be helpful here is
WP:NOR
and the need for a balanced, authoritatively informative encyclopedia. Joking aside, he might be very helpful with (a) what you're trying to draft, and (b) my misgivings about the presumptive connection between a nonce phrase in the 70s and 80s and a coherent polemical concept in the 21st century.

You're more sanguine about the polar ice caps than I, but your office sounds like a nice place and bring on them cites.--G-Dett (talk) 00:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Drip, drip. See: Chanes, Jerome A. (1995). Antisemitism in America Today: Outspoken Experts Explode the Myths. New York: Birch Lane Press/Carol Publishing. Chapter on "The New Antisecularism: Right for the Jews?" by Mark Silk, pp. 299-306. Discusses Forster & Epstein directing "attention to enmity among Christian clergy of the center and the left, not the right," p. 300. Mentions "Vigilance against left-liberal criticism of Israel," p. 300. Discusses rise of Muslim religion, p. 303. Discusses strategic shift to alliance with Christian Right against liberal secularists.--Cberlet (talk) 02:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Template

Someone added the antisemitism template to the lead, but we already have one at the end, so I've removed it. I've also restored the first sentence to its previous form — "is the concept of," rather than "is a phrase referring to the idea," which was unnecessarily wordy. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 22:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

They also mean two different things and involve differing assumptions, SV. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
And this article is about the concept. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
It so purports to be, to its detriment.

In any case, I wasn't objecting to the change, merely pointing out a problem with SV's description of her action. --Relata refero (disp.) 01:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Accuracy regarding the term "ZOG"

The article says this:

Toward the end of 1990, as the movement against the Gulf War began to build, Berlet writes that a number of far-right and antisemitic groups sought out alliances with left-wing anti-war coalitions, who began to speak openly about a "Jewish lobby" that was encouraging the United States to invade the Middle East. This idea morphed into conspiracy theories about a "Zionist-occupied government" (ZOG), which Berlet writes is the modern incarnation of the antisemitic hoax, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

However, according to our article about the
Zionist Occupation Government conspiracy theory, that term appeared in 1976 in neo-Nazi writings, and was discussed in 1984 in the New York Times and Newsweek. So it's inaccurate to suggest that the ZOG conspiracy theory "morphed" (that is, developed) out of anything having to do with the Gulf War or from the leftist and rightist groups making noises about the "Jewish lobby" in the 1990s: the ZOG conspiracy theory existed for several years before that in the extreme right. --FOo (talk
) 08:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

While I have avoided the
the peace movement
, motivates me to comment and even eventually edit this section. To be accurate and comprehensible, shouldn't section include a few more verifying facts and read something like (changes in bold):
During the 1990s far-right and antisemitic groups like ___ and ____ created conspiracy theories about a "
Zionist-occupied government" (ZOG), which Berlet writes is the modern incarnation of the antisemitic hoax, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.^[2]
Toward the end of 1990, as the movement against the Gulf War began to build, some of these antisemites sought out alliances with left-wing anti-war coalitions. Some (people) (groups) like ___ and ___ began to speak openly about a nefarious "Jewish lobby" that was encouraging the United States to invade the Middle East. Berlet writes that the antiwar movement "overwhelmingly rejected these overtures by the political right." He cites the example of Wisconsin anti-war activist Alan Ruff, who appeared with another local anti-war activist, Emmanuel Branch, on a panel discussing the Gulf War. "Suddenly I heard Branch saying the war was the result of a Zionist banking conspiracy," said Ruff. "I found myself squeezed between pro-war hawks and this anti-Jewish nut, it destroyed the ability of those of us who opposed the war to make our point."[16]

I don't know why this stops at 1990, especially because since 9/11 there is a growing willingness within much of the peace movement to discuss the influence of the Israel lobby, a big and active pro-Palestine movement within peace movements and on campuses, incidents where pro and anti-Israel speakers shut down, and all sorts of accusations of -- and denials of -- "new antisemitism" against members of both groups. Not to mention attempts by David Horowitz and his ilk to have government monitor what's said about Israel by profs and students on government funded campuses. And there are ample reliable sources. Carol Moore 13:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

The term "ZOG" was never picked up by "left-wing anti-war coalitions" and has never been used by any credible left group or individual. It is solely the lingo of the loony right.Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 16:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This is simply false, and I not only heard it myself, but interviewed several other horrified antiwar activists after they heard the term used in public by leftists. See below.--Cberlet (talk) 15:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on. I've heard Catholics say Jesus christ was a child molester. I was horrified! But please, freakish outliers have no place in an encyclopedia, and anecdotal accountings of freakish outliers sourced to fringe publications have no place in one either. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 14:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You (Boodles not chip not the out of order quote above) probably are correct, which is why any accusation to be credible should name names and better examples than relatively tame one BtheCat deleted. I can imagine righwingers wandering into such coalitions and ranting but I can't imagine any coalition adopting that term - certainly haven't heard of anything. The left is far too politically correct! Carol Moore 23:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

9/11 is a sufficiently divisive issue that it should really have its own section here. My specific concern was to debunk the claim that "ZOG" was a term coming out of anti-war alliances between left and right; more credible sources (as cited in the ZOG article) show it to predate the Gulf War and to be specifically a neo-Nazi term.

I think the above proposed outline is a definite improvement. I'd like to see some neutral sources -- say, news or scholarly articles, not advocacy -- for the left/right anti-war alliance claim. While there's certainly some antisemitism on the far left, it was always my impression that it came from alliances with pro-Palestinian groups and the Zionism-as-colonialism meme, rather than from an anti-war alliance with explicitly racist groups such as neo-Nazis, who tend to be explicitly anti-leftist. --FOo (talk) 04:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

A lack of research into this topic poses a serious problem here. Left-right antiwar, anti-imperialist, and anti-globalization alliances have been creating problems around the world for over a decade. The total ignorance and/or denial involved in some of the claims about the left and antisemitism posted in this discussion are alarming. See, for example, the entry here on
Anti-globalization_and_Anti-Semitism. See these websites: [40], [41], [42]. See, for example, the cover story in the Progressive magazine: Chip Berlet, “Friendly Fascists: The Far Right Tries to Move in on the Left,” The Progressive, June 1992. See: "Zog Ate my Brains," New Internationalist, October 2004. See: Chip Berlet, Right Woos Left: Populist Party, LaRouchian, and Other Neo-fascist Overtures to Progressives and Why They Must Be Rejected, Revised and updated. Cambridge, MA: Political Research Associates, [1991] 1994. Less uncited opinion please.--Cberlet (talk
) 15:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, see
WP:OWNership. Really now, Chip. You're citing yourself, and your little POV-forked walledgarden. This is pretty sad. <eleland/talkedits
> 16:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is a pamphlet on left antisemitism put out by a progressive. There have been two national progressive conferences on left antisemitism attended progressives, leftists, and left anarchists concerned about the issue. Denial plus personal attacks are not a constructive approach. Facing the issue is constructive.--Cberlet (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Chip, "facing the issue" in the way you're facing it might be constructive if you were a community organizer in a community afflicted by the rare virus you describe, but in this online encyclopedia project it runs afoul of WP:UNDUE, WP:NOR, etc. Jay and Slim are in many instances strict about core content policy, but for ideological reasons have been strategically lenient in your case.--G-Dett (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I just fixed the statement to make it clear who was talking about ZOG. I think the world allege belongs there until Berlet comes up with some RS that name those anti-semites, those anti-war activist, or those anti-war coalitions that were engaged in the alleged behavior. The Ruff example is OK if it comes from a reliable source. It's not our jobs to read all those links and do your research for you. Carol Moore 16:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Thanks, Carolmooredc.
Cberlet -- we don't use opinion pamphlets as sources for anything other than their opinions on this project. Instead of accusing others of bad research and "uncited opinion", could you please explain why you thought that "ZOG" conspiracy theory came out of anti-Gulf-War alliances, while the New York Times thinks it went back to the '70s and Aryan Nations?
It really isn't clear to me that tiny kook groups like the LaRouchies are at all relevant here. I'm concerned that there is an attempt to tar anti-war groups as antisemitic for allegedly being in some kind of "alliance" with the extreme right. But all that is actually entered into evidence is that the extreme right tried to buddy up with the anti-war movement but were rebuffed. So this comes across as similar to adding to an article about a person the claim that they were frequently approached by crack dealers and prostitutes, but did not indulge. We would never put that in an article. --FOo (talk) 19:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Please pay attention, FOo. I have never stated, in print or in a speech, that the term ZOG originally came from "anti-Gulf-War alliances" or the Left. I have written elsewhere how it emerged from ultra-right antisemites. I was researching this in the 1970s and 1980s. In the early 1990s, I and other researchers and activists on the Left started to hear the term being used at anti-Gulf-War rallies, first by right-wing isolationists, and then being picked up by people who claimed to be on the Left. You can pretend this never happened if you like, but why? It happened, I wrote about how some on the Left were picking up antisemitic conspiracy theories from the Right--including the term "ZOG," and it was published. Please do not continue to misrepresent what I wrote. It is tedious and tendentious. Deal with the fact that there is a published report which makes the claim. It was factual when written, and it remains factual.--Cberlet (talk) 20:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. The following text was just cut from the article on History of antisemitism:
Berlet adds: "It is important to recognize that as a whole the antiwar movement overwhelmingly rejected these overtures by the political right, while recognizing that the attempt reflected a larger ongoing problem." He cites the example of Wisconsin anti-war activist Alan Ruff, who appeared on a panel in Verona to discuss the Gulf War. Also on the panel on the anti-war side was another local activist, Emmanuel Branch. "Suddenly I heard Branch saying the war was the result of a Zionist banking conspiracy," said Ruff. "I found myself squeezed between pro-war hawks and this anti-Jewish nut, it destroyed the ability of those of us who opposed the war to make our point." (cited to Right Woos Left).

What is going on here?--Cberlet (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Please re-read the talk, though it does look like the explanation from person who deleted the Ruff quote has been deleted and I forget what it was. More importantly, according to
WP:BLP one needs a totally reliable source to say controversial things about people like what Ruff allegedly said about Emmanuel Branch (if un-provable both Ruff and Branch could sue wikipedia). It's not clear you have provided one. Was a news paper article? A rumor you heard? Or what? Carol Moore 03:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

What utter nonsense. It was published by PRA in print form, and based on my reporting as Chip Berlet. It was also published in the Progressive magazine. There is no BLP issue here.--Cberlet (talk) 18:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You must remember that this thread started (see first paragraph) because you put in an entry that was poorly written and therefore cast probably false aspersions on others, leading people to wonder about everything else you have in that paragraph. Also, remember that even if whether you are in fact a reliable source was not a repeated source of controversy on
WP:RS and elsewhere, any reliably sourced info can be deleted, or required to have additional RS for claims made, according to editorial judgment of a number of editors - especially in cases of BLP. It does seem WP:RS needs a separate category for advocacy organizations that hire people to advance their causes, even (current or former) scholastics and journalists. Carol Moore 01:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Carol, please avoid making
WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Jayjg ^(talk)
01:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me know if you actually change Wikipedia policy, Carol Moore. In the meantime, PRA has repeatedly been found to be a reputable published source. In addtion, I did not start this entry. I did not post quotes from my report into this entry. I did not start this discussion. I did not write that the term "ZOG" originated with the Left. Therefore the above post that discusses material that is "poorly written and therefore cast probably false aspersions on others," is more factually aimed at another editor, not me.--Cberlet (talk) 03:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Chip, I probably cut the stuff from History of Antisemitism, and if I did it was only an attempt to reweight it and stick to what is well sourced. Oh, and a lot of it was odd in the context because it was originally written to describe the debate on the NAS concept. I also didn't think that the "Chip Berlet writes" was appropriate in that article. Please feel free to get stuck into the History article and add whatever you have that is well sourced. Cheers. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Chip. You gotta realize if you only seemed to be supporting an inaccurate description of your views and not trying to correct it, people might get mis-impression you wrote it.

RE:
WP:RS I am proposing an ALPHABETICAL LIST OF PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED [RS] SOURCES AND ISSUES here that would be hosted as a separate page on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard that would link to old and at least clarify and put in context new discussions of WP:RS, including you and your group. Carol Moore 15:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Emphasis

Why is the following comment emphasized in quotes? Is there a special reason? In my opinion, a 3 year old infant is not representative of anyone, not even of herself. The why quote one?
Specifically I'm referring to this:

A charming TV personality [on Egyptian television] asked little Basmallah, a 3½ year old girl, 'Do you know who the Jews are?' "Yes." 'Do you like them?' "No." 'Why?' "Because they are monkeys and swine ..."

Bless sins (talk) 18:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It is Bauer who is being quoted, not the girl. But I think it should be taken out and replaced by something more representative of Bauer's line of argument, rather than this illustrative example. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

One could write a lengthy paper on the same animal imagery in Zionist texts, even from rabbinical sources, or from all sources re Arabs ('the noisy facility of the Syrian- an ape-like people' T.E.Lawrence, The Seven Pillars of Wisdom Bodley Head p.45), though so far, fortunately, Arabs haven't crammed Wiki with this kind of factitious rubbish.Nishidani (talk) 13:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Nonsense. Muslim descriptions of Jews as apes and pigs are common, and trace back to the Qur'an. See 5:60, for example: [43] Jayjg ^(talk) 01:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

'The people who are abroad are all those that have no religion, neither one based on speculation nor one received by tradition. Such are the extreme Turks that wander about in the north, the Kushites who live in the south, and those in our country who are like these. I consider these as irrational beings, and not as human beings; they are below mankind, but above monkeys, since they have the form and shape of man, and a mental faculty above that of the monkey.
Moses Maimonides, Guide for the Perplexed, tr. M. Friedländer, 2nd.rev.ed Routledge & Kegan Paul, London 1904 Part 3 Ch.LI, p.385. Nonsense of course, just like the nonsense in the Quran re Jews
Nishidani (talk

[1]

Organizations that fight anti-Semitism

Zombietime image in the lead

Archive

Section on Germany

Size of Article

See also

Antisemitism in Latvia

What is this New Antisemitism?

A better location for Zombie's snapshot?

Trying something different

Zombietime image

The caption

cite error

Debate redux

Invitation to discussion

Views of current parties

zombietime image

The WP:V objection is without merit

RfC: Is the Zombietime photo appropriate for this article?

Comment/Reiteration by CJCurrie

Criticism of Zombietime

The issue isn't Zombietime

Fair use rationale for Image:Msa sfsu poster.jpg

New relevant source

Suggestion for moving forward

Zombietime image credit

This settles it I think

Citation style modification request

Progressive' Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism

Finkelstein

International perspectives

Broken citations, redundant citations

tendentious edits?

reliable source?

Bauer pdf

Copy edit

Redundancy

Lead image

Citations

Both images?

Random break

Nature of compromise

References section, safe at last

Problems with Zombietime image

Mediation request

Arabs ARE semites

Zombietime's status during mediation

AfD?

Casting aspersions by miscategorization

Intro

Data points on usage

Template

Accuracy regarding the term "ZOG"

Emphasis

Forster and Epstein

"The Left" and "anti-Zionism"

Bauer

Taguieff's "neologism" Judeophobie

Extremists

Defining the Concept

New Antisemitism Mediation

Zombie Time Picture, again?

U.S. politics and foreign policy

Protocols of the Elders of Zion

International Prespectives: confusion in the article

BBC are new anti-semites

The
WP:V
objection is without merit