Talk:New antisemitism/Archive 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 ← Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20

Explanation needed

My edits were reverted with the explanation that they were less accurate. I'm not sure where they are less accurate. I do feel that they improved the article by more concisely phrasing Lewis's views.VR talk 05:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Your condensed version omitted the following:
  1. "convinced the Arab world that discrimination against Jews was acceptable."
  2. "All the Arab governments involved in the conflict announced that they would not admit Israelis of any religion into their territories, and that they would not give visas to Jews, no matter which country they were citizens of."


Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 14:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

1. The original source doesn't say "Lewis argues that the United Nations' handling of the 1948 refugee situation convinced the Arab world that discrimination against Jews was acceptable." Instead it says "The United Nations’s handling of the 1948 war and the resulting problems shows some curious disparities—for example, on the question of refugees...This surely sent a very clear message to the Arab world". And so, I wrote, "the indifference of the United Nations and international public opinion to Arab discrimination against Jews reinforced it."
2. My version did say "refusal of Arab countries to give Jews visas". And I don't think the refusal of Arab countries to give visas to Muslim and Christian Israelis (Lewis talks about refusal of Saudi Arabia to let Israeli Muslims go for the hajj) is an example of antisemitism. Lewis doesn't call it antisemitism (he only says "its worth noting").
VR talk 14:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Could AnkhMorpork explain this summary. I did address point 2, both on talk and in my edits. What exactly is AnkhMorpork talking about?VR talk 17:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

RfC

Light bulb iconBAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Confusion

This article is misleading by its blurring of the distinction between the fundamentally distinct concepts of antisemitisim and antizionism. This is something that probably should be addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.76.7.207 (talk) 00:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

i agree this page is severe propaganda at the very least and should be moved for immediate deletion considering its near groundless claims. 24.113.48.56 (talk) 04:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

@192 - just look at set theory: two concepts can be independent; one can be a subset of the other; or there ban be some, but not complete, overlap. So "blurring the distinction" is actually sometimes both necessary and meaningful. @24 can you provide a specific example of propaganda? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
This article is pure crap agit-prop, mixing antizionism & antisemitism. Another example of the double standarts in WP.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 13:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Yours is not a valid argument. Besides, the article presents both supporters and critics of the concept.--Sonntagsbraten (talk) 02:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Please help

Please expand and clarify this serious assault happened in France today. http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2012/06/03/97001-20120603FILWWW00194-trois-juifs-portant-une-kippa-agresses-pres-de-lyon.php From lefigaro.fr I do not know French very well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.58.162.166 (talk) 21:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

By all accounts the assault was motivated by antisemitism, but the news article doesn't indicate any connection between the attack and the subject of this article, "new antisemitism". — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
It was done by Muslims with the tacit approval of their leftist allies, which is the very definition of new anti-Semitism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.143.33.82 (talk) 04:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not think that anyone supported this attacks. Malik Shabazz is right, they can not be considered as part of New antisemitism.Tritomex (talk) 13:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

According to http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/10/25/unbonjuif_french_anti_semitism , there's been a significant amount of retroactive approval... AnonMoos (talk) 09:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
This article, The European Left and Its Trouble With Jews, explicitly links the attacks in France with "anti-Zionism spill[ing] over into anti-Semitism" Ankh.Morpork 20:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Relevant NY Times OpEd

"The European Left and Its Trouble With Jews" by Colin Shindler, The New York Times, October 28, 2012 -- AnonMoos (talk) 20:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The causes of new anti-Semitism

The Muslims control the European leftist media and have brainwashed the Europeans into thinking that Israel is evil. That, plus the Europeans were already anti-Semitic to begin with, is the reason behind the new anti-Semitism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Powervurce (talk • contribs) 07:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as stated in that form, your thesis is stupid. A few leftists operate under the assumption that white people have no right to criticize anything that non-whites do, but Muslims hardly "control" the European left. Furthermore, the big rise in New antisemitism dates from the mid-1970s (UNGA Resolution 3379 etc), when Muslims in Europe could hardly be said to control anything, and there was little overt Islamist ideology even in majority-Muslim countries... AnonMoos (talk) 14:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Semiotext(e)

This deserves a mention maybe as another thing that is not but related to Anti-Semitism, here Hatred of Capitalism. 108.183.102.223 (talk) 07:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Changes to archive settings

The settings on this page governing the activities of the archival bot previously read: 

{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 125K
|counter = 5
|algo = old(14d)
|archive = Talk:New antisemitism/Archive  %(counter)d
}}

I have changed them to: 

{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 5
|minthreadsleft = 10
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = Talk:New antisemitism/Archive  %(counter)d
}}

Wikipedia provides some reasonably clear Talk page guidelines. One of the sections within the guidelines concerns: When to condense pages. It says: "It is recommended to archive or refactor a page either when it exceeds 75 KB, or has more than 10 main sections". At the point of this edit the page contained 11.9 KB I have set the time setting to a relatively moderate 30 days but a higher value might be considered. Gregkaye (talk) 13:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

  • I just want to add that I appreciate that some admin type Wikipedia pages have low level settings in "minthreadsleft" and, in this context, I can understand how a low level setting might have been installed here.
In my pov, talk pages like this connect to subjects to which a wide variety of views may be ascribed. It seems to me that adequate space should be given for the address of relevant issues and by a variety of editors. Gregkaye (talk) 10:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:3D Test of Antisemitism which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 10:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Merger

I'd like to have Antisemitism and the anti-globalization movement merged into New antisemitism as it appears to be a fork of this article. AnonAnnu (talk) 12:02, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

If you have anything to say about the cartoon File:Cry-wolf.png say it here.

See title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwant2write (talk • contribs) 17:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:No original research. Find a secondary source that describes the cartoon as "downplaying antisemitism under the guise of anti-Zionism", whatever that means. Otherwise, it's impermissible original research. Find a secondary source that describes the Jew in the cartoon as a stereotype. Otherwise, it's impermissible original research. And please read WP:ARBPIA3#500/30, which says you can't edit this article until you've made 500 edits. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
This article is not covered under WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 as it does not directly relate the I/P conflict. You can check the top of the talk page, it does not mention that this page is covered under it. Secondly a not every canard has an article about it and one does not need an expert opinion to determine if something is meant to downplay anti semitism. Out of curiosity why do you think I made this edit? -Iwant2write (talk) 18:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to burst your bubble, but WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 applies to "any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict". Let's see, an article about anti-Zionism, radical Islam, the State of Israel... nah, it has nothing to do with the Arab–Israeli conflict. Continue to edit articles in this subject area at your own peril. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
The keyword being reasonable, Malik. I have no immediate comment on this dispute, but it's unseemly for a long time editor to hide beneath ArbCom's skirt like this. Don't bludgeon relatively new editors with WP:BUROcratic red tape, please. -- Kendrick7talk 22:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
The article is about antisemitism, its only relation to the subjects mentioned above is that it mentions them much like many other articles do. I just don't see where you see the limit to "any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict" for example this page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islam_and_antisemitism&action=history has a history full of anonymous unrevoked edits even though it can well be construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict or is there something I simply misundertand. What type of compromise do you envision? 23:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwant2write (talk • contribs)
Having seen the image, I'd normally be disinclined to allow some random editorial cartoon, but this article already has let random spraypaint on a sidewalk somewhere stick around. There should be a line against graphic propaganda, but it's not clear where the consensus on this article currently lies. -- Kendrick7talk 23:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
I think you're referring to File:Neoantisemismo.jpg, which was added to the article on April 27 by Iwant2write. It's a photograph with a neutral, descriptive caption—as opposed to the original research you just restored and I'm going to revert. As I wrote, find a secondary source that describes the cartoon as "downplaying antisemitism under the guise of anti-Zionism" (which makes no sense in English). — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Ah, crap. I've been bamboozled. My apologies! -- Kendrick7talk 05:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Are you questioning my English skills here or are you simply a little bit under read on the subject matter at hand? In simpler terms, do you know what I am talking about? Do you even plan on getting any consensus? I am just starting to get this notion that you are neither here to work with me to reach amicable compromise or otherwise help me out. 04:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwant2write (talk • contribs)
The caption for File:Cry-wolf.png was an unambiguous WP:OR policy violation. It's impossible to produce a WP:CONSENSUS that violates policy. That is why Malik said "find a secondary source that describes the cartoon as <the caption>". For that image to be included there needs to be one or preferably more reliable sources that explicitly connect it to the subject of this article "New antisemitism" and any caption must be directly supported by what the sources say about the image. Without a secondary source there is no reason for the image to be in the article and nothing to discuss here. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
There is a whole lot to discuss here if you think that the image in question actually needs a source to describe what is happening in it. Even in the unlikely chance that I were to find a proper academic article on this exact comic, I still have no assurance that you will not find another reason to strike it down that I have yet to consider. What I have found though is a wikipedia article (with sources) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Latuff that alleges that the author of this comic is anti semitic it even shows the comic itself, in fact that article has been like that for a while. My question here will any of these sources really be enough to fulfill your requirements? It appears we disagree very strongly but I imagine that we can still work together in one way or another. Iwant2write (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what I think and these are not my requirements. No one needs to comply with what I think or my requirements. It is about complying with mandatory policy. This is especially important on issues related to the Arab-Israel conflict because they are covered by discretionary sanctions (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Editors_reminded). Sean.hoyland - talk 11:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Are the sources sufficient or not for you (or someone in your position) to not undo my edit if I were to make it? Iwant2write (talk) 17:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
The fact that some people think Latuff is antisemtic has no bearing on the content of that specific cartoon, does it? And the fact that some people think Latuff is antisemtic has no bearing on the fact that you don't satisfy ArbCom's 500-edit requirement, does it? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
The Simon Wiesenthal Centre is not "just some people" it is what most what most would consider a credible source on the subject antisemitism. That aside I also see that we are back to disputing whether or not this is covered under 500-edit requirement or not. I am still convinced that this cartoon is practically a modern antisemitic canard as it borrows borrows heavily from the concept when it comes to depicting the Jewish character. I don't suppose you would be willing to add the cartoon yourself but with the caption of your choice like "Jewish and Palestinian man standing in a field" or something to that effect? Iwant2write (talk) 03:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
The only person who questions whether WP:ARBPIA and WP:ARBPIA3 apply to this article is you. Frankly, I don't see the value in adding the Latuff cartoon to this article; it doesn't illustrate "new antisemitism" ("emanating simultaneously from the far-left, radical Islam, and the far-right, and tending to manifest itself as opposition to Zionism and the State of Israel") the way the other images in the article do. To me, the cartoon mocks the way some Jews react to legitimate criticism of Israel. Maybe it belongs in Criticism of the Israeli government. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 14:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
FWIW I also question this. But I agree that this addition is WP:OR. -- Kendrick7talk 05:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
It's not a question of whether 500/30 applies to the article. It's about whether it applies to an edit. The image says "free palestine end occupation" so it's covered by the ARBPIA 500/30 rule. You can be certain that that is how admins will see it, just like a topic ban applies at the edit level not just the article level. Of course the rule itself could be worded better, but in practice 500/30 already applies at the edit level. Anyway, I agree with Malik that this is not a good image to use for this article regardless of 500/30. But if it's going to be a Latuff image, File:Ship to Gaza by Latuff.gif seems more like the kind of image that might interest people who know a bit about the history of propaganda. I don't know whether any scholars have written about that image and explicitly connected it to the subject of this article but I wouldn't be surprised if they had because of Josef Plank's work e.g.[1]. Although of course, in fact, the octopus has long been a favorite for propaganda artists, be they communists[2], anti-communists[3], facists[4] etc and it long pre-dates the anti-Semitism of the Nazis propagandists e.g. File:Standard oil octopus loc color.jpg from 1904. There are some great examples on the web for anyone interested in the history of propaganda. And it's still going strong e.g. [5][6] Sean.hoyland - talk 07:31, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
One thing I should add, because I think it matters, is that if a piece of propaganda art is used, an effort should be made to include the artist's statement about the art for balance, if they made one. Reliably sourced contrasting interpretations should also be included. That is only fair and what is expected of Wikipedia editors because of NPOV. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:10, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
To me the cartoon represents how antisemites use the concept of antizionism to perpetuate age old canards in a "more socially acceptable" manner, it also represents how there are some people who go along with it without question. If you feel it belongs in Criticism of the Israeli government how about you go ahead and add it there? I am not allowed to do so but it appears that you are, it might another result in another long talk page with other editors though but will hopefully result in some meaningful discourse. Iwant2write (talk) 03:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Can't follow some of the details of the discussion above (I came to it late), but it has seemed obvious to me for many years that Latuff's choice to depict the figure on the left wearing side-curls was very problematic in almost every respect, and means that the cartoon exemplifies antisemitism more than it discusses it. That doesn't necessarily mean that the image would be useful for inclusion on the article, though... AnonMoos (talk) 13:50, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

For my own enlightenment, interest in propaganda and the history of cartooning (which was essentially founded on racist physiognomy and caricature), in what sense do you think depicting side-curls exemplify antisemitism? Where does that notion come from? I'm assuming the guy on the left is meant to be a heavily armed Orthodox Jewish settler in the West Bank and the guy on the right is meant to be something like an ISM protester I guess...he looks like a Westerner to me. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:40, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
How about this somewhat comparable cartoon from Haaretz, problematic or not problematic and why? Of course, no need to answer if you have better things to do. I'm just curious. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:58, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
There's a small flamboyant fringe of ultra-orthodox ultra-gung-ho settlers, but the average West Bank settler does not wear side-curls, while the majority of side-curl wearers in Israel live in pre-1967 Jerusalem neighborhoods, where they often speak Yiddish (rather than Hebrew) at home, and have traditionally had a somewhat equivocal relationship with Zionism and the idea of the state of Israel. If Latuff thinks that the typical West bank settler wears side-curls, then the charitable interpretation is ineptitude -- while the obvious alternative interpretation (in the light of Latuff's whole body of work) is that Latuff's real problem is with the Jewish religion, not "Zionism".
P.S. I see a lot of beards in the Haaretz cartoon, but no sidecurls, and that cartoon is not actually about settlers, Arabs, or the West Bank, so the claimed relevance is quite unclear to me... AnonMoos (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Very interesting. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
I was struck by the combination of shorts and peyot, which is simply bizarre. Zerotalk 00:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
I assumed the shorts with straps were to communicate the 'boy' aspect of the 'boy who cried wolf' and the peyot, curls, weapons, flag T-shirt were to communicate the ultra-orthodox ultra-gung-ho settler aspect. It's interesting how different people read the visual language of cartoons/comics and the intent of the artist. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately, you're probably crediting Latuff with good intentions and/or perspicacity which he does not possess. If you think he's aware that that side-curled settlers are a tiny and unrepresentative minority of settlers, then this raises the question of why he would detract from effectiveness of his cartoon by dragging in purely-religious issues which aren't too relevant to the ostensible main point of the cartoon (unless, of course, his main objection to Israelis is actually their religion, not their actions). If he's not aware that side-curled settlers are a tiny and unrepresentative minority of settlers, then he would do much better to keep away from commentary on such areas at all, until he's educated himself much more adequately on some of the sensitive issues involved. AnonMoos (talk) 02:20, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Convenience break

Poster held by a protester at an anti-war rally in San Francisco on February 16, 2003.
Note the origin of this picture on the right (also in this article) is http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_february_16_2003/ , a collection of wackadoodle fringe posters including two of the "9/11 was an inside job" variety. Currently, this article reads like the 9/11 attacks article would if it were full of pictures of "9/11 was an inside job" posters, very WP:UNDUE. I think the Carlos Latuff cartoon would fit well under the "Criticism of Israel is not always antisemitism" section. It would help the balance the WP:UNDUE nature of the many pictures in this article selected solely to create sympathy for the continued occupation of Palestine. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 22:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
First off, this article is much more parallel to the 9/11 conspiracy theories article than the "9/11 attacks" article. Second, unfortunately Carlos Latuff is a tainted source in the eyes of many, who consider that he displays and exemplifies antisemitism far more than he offers any kind of reasoned critique of it. When the UK Guardian newspaper publishes in its pages that someone "draw[s] without inhibition on judeophobic stereotypes"[7] then it's overwhelmingly likely that some kind of problem exists... AnonMoos (talk) 06:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I would not want this article to be written parallel to a conspiracy theory article like the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. The majority of the academic community does agree with people like Noam Chomsky that antisemitism in the industrialized world has gone from a very important issue in the 1950s to a "very marginal issue" now. However, there is still a significant minority who would not classify "new antisemitism" as a conspiracy theory. The reason this article is so WP:UNDUE is because the Noam Chomsky view is very under represented, while the proponents of the new antisemitism theory have included every wackadoodle fringe poster available to create sympathy for the continued occupation of Palestine. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 17:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Whatever -- we're not interested in your personal opinions about middle-eastern issues or the price of tea in China (none of which has anything to do with improving the article "New antisemitism", which is the purpose of this page). And if the attendees or organizers at a demonstration or rally don't condemn or expel the "wackadoodles", then unfortunately the "wackadoodles" will come to define said demonstration or rally in the eyes of many... AnonMoos (talk) 07:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Also, Noam Chomsky is not a social analyst or expert on hate speech and hate groups, but rather a linguistics professor who moonlights as a pontificator and pundit on politics and international relations, and is intensely polarizing and controversial in that self-appointed role. AnonMoos (talk) 07:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Coincidentally, "moonlighter", "pontificator", "polarizing" and "self-appointed" are four recommended ways of describing Noam Chomsky according to these classes: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/aug/18/wikipedia-editing-zionist-groups
If you had just thrown in "self-hating Jew", I would have had Bingo! Gouncbeatduke (talk) 19:12, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
That's nice -- if you're accusing me of being a paid advocacy editor or pure ideological editor with no interest in improving Wikipedia, then you have no particular evidence for this, so that's a pure personal attack on your part, and you are in violation of Wikipedia policies. (It's self-evidently objectively not the case that I'm a single-purpose editor.) If you want me to go down a general list of Chomsky's failings and annoying characteristics that have nothing to do with Israel, then we can discuss that in some other place -- since they would have no more relevance to improving the article "New antisemitism" (the purpose of this page) than your opinions on middle-eastern politics, the price of tea in China, or on shoes and ships and sealing-wax, on cabbages and kings, and why the sea is boiling hot, and whether pigs have wings (to quote the Walrus). AnonMoos (talk) 02:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
I said nothing of the sort. I do think all four of your claims about Chomsky are intellectually dishonest. Chomsky is a Jewish Zionist following in the tradition of Martin Buber who in the early 1920s advocated for a binational Jewish-Arab state, stating that the Jewish people should proclaim "its desire to live in peace and brotherhood with the Arab people and to develop the common homeland into a republic in which both peoples will have the possibility of free development.”
Back to the point here: There are four pictures in this article chosen to illustrate the point of view of (what this article calls) the “proponents of the concept”, and zero pictures in this article chosen to illustrate the point of view of (what this article calls) the “critics of the concept”. To reach a neutral point of view, the article should have an equal number of pictures illustrating each side’s POV. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 20:20, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, back to the point. Has Carlos Latuff (or anybody else) created an image that criticizes or rebuts the concept that there is such a thing as "new antisemitism"? Examples (link to images that are on or off Wikipedia/Wikimedia) would be helpful, reliable sources would be great, original research and other interpretation need not apply. To be honest, I've read dozens of essays, but I can't say I've seen too many images. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:29, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Carlos Latuff cartoons are often referenced in criticism of "new antisemitism". See http://www.tlaxcala-int.org/article.asp?reference=17154 for an example. On the other hand the San Fran poster just comes from a blog of anti-war posters, and as far as any of us know, it may only represent the views of a very small and marginal lunatic fringe at one anti-war rally. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, I think that cartoon illustrates some of the points made in this article by critics of the concept of "new antismitism". It's unfortunate that I'm not "fluent" in image licensing and I don't know whether the copyleft policy at the site you linked to allows us to upload the image to Commons. Maybe we can get more discussion here and if there's support for including the image in the article, I'll look into what we need to do to make that happen. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on New antisemitism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on New antisemitism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 28 external links on New antisemitism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 23 external links on New antisemitism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:02, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Concern within the political left

One of the protagonists of the anti-globalization movement, the Canadian writer and activist Naomi Klein, believes that the anti-globalization movement isn't anti-Semitic. Unfortunately the reference quoted[1], initially uses the term "anti-globalization" but the following instances in the article are typos using "globalization" instead. I edited to correct that but it was undid. How do we correct a correct link which has obvious typos? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talar (talk • contribs) 18:07, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://inthesetimes.com/issue/26/13/feature2.shtml
The "problem" is that Klein (or the editors of In These Times) used the phrase "globalization movement" where most of us would have used "anti-globalization movement", and Wikipedia is generally strict about maintaining quotations without editorial changes. I changed it, indicating that I made a small change to Klein's words, to clarify the meaning. We'll have to see if anybody objects. In the meantime, are there any other places that you think the wording is incorrect? — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 18:31, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't see the incorrect wording anywhere else here. Klein's article, with the same typos, also appeared on https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/apr/25/comment.guardiancolumnists. I contacted them, the previous source, and Klein, on 14 November 2018, with the hope that the typos will be corrected. I suggest you add 'sic' to clarify the correction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talar (talk • contribs) 23:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

It's neither "incorrect wording" nor "typos". It's a choice to use a phrase slightly differently than most other people use it. I would suggest that we either add "[anti-]" before "globalization movement" or leave the phrase as it was and add " [sic]" after it to indicate that it is an error. We typically don't both correct a text and indicate that our correction is an error. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

NYT article "Anti-Semitism Is Back, From the Left, Right and Islamist Extremes. Why?"

Here.[8] Doug Weller talk 12:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Bad link

Re: "See also: Israel, Palestine and the United Nations" -- that article has now been split. AnonMoos (talk) 21:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Wtf is this

This article is suggesting Israel represents all Jews.... GrandBotBoi (talk) 20:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean? Which part is suggesting that? You aren't being clear. - Shiftchange (talk) 09:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Nope. It says that sometimes, criticism of Israel (which is perfectly fine in principle) may be motivated by anti-semitism (and not just 'anti-zionism'). - Daveout(talk) 23:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge with 3D Test of Antisemitism

I think it makes more sense for these to be one article since most sources consider this a defintion of "new antisemtism" Seraphim System (talk) 15:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Support merging that article into this one. One of the hallmarks of the "new antisemitism" theory is that much criticism of Israel is veiled antisemitism, and the "3D test" was Sharansky's attempt to differentiate legitimate criticism of Israel from antisemitism. -- Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support the 3D article is basically a fork. Also, it is necessary to add sources that criticize the test as it is controversial and expands the definition of antisemitism. Nixon Now (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Simply because I think the 3D test is sufficiently a notable thing to have an article of its own. (However, that article should indeed include criticisms (as per Nixon Now). And it should also be trimmed of those examples which constitute SYN and OR, but which might be looked at first to see if they belong in this article, although this article is already rather bloated.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Independently notable subtopic.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  05:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- this article should be a broad one, about Jew-hatred of quasi-"left" origins, which is not always about Israel. For example, some would claim that modern new-antisemitism was launched into political prominence in the United States with the Ocean Hill-Brownsville strike of 1968, which had nothing to do with Israel. AnonMoos (talk) 12:10, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- per AnonMoos (and if he wants to expand this article, I would be more than happy).--J+N+J+B+ H+W+R+W+N% (Yaniv) (talk) 21:06, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

By the way User:Seraphim_System was later revealed to have about 50 sockpuppet accounts(!)... AnonMoos (talk) 09:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_antisemitism/Archive_20&oldid=1221499232"