Talk:New antisemitism/Archive 6

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 1

←

Archive 4

→

Citation claim that "new anti-Semitism" used to silence debate

I have reviewed Brian Klug's article in The Nation, which is used as the source for the claim that "critics of the concept argue...that it is sometimes used to silence debate." Nowhere in his piece is such an argument made, which is similarly repeated in the summary of his views. The main thrust of his article is that in his opinion, the idea of "new" anti-Semitism is merely a construction of the "old" anti-Semitism, with the inclusion of the notion of anti-Zionism being anti-Semitic. I further cannot find a reference in his editorial to the following claim, likewise presented in the summary: "He suggests that line between legitimate and anti-Semitic criticism of Israel is being drawn by many supporters of Israel in such a way as to rule out any criticism beyond a rap across the Israeli government's knuckles or a finger wagging at the laws of its land." I should note that having read Klug's article, I am confused as to whether the "criticism" section is based exclusively on this work, or some of his other writings. For example, I have come across a paper by Klug on his site, Jewish Forum for Justice and Human Rights, which includes a related, but certainly different claim:

Second, there is another kind of overstatement, one that comes, as it were, from the opposite camp. Partisans of the Palestinians sometimes accuse partisans of Israel of using the word ‘antisemite’ as a deliberate tactic to shut them down. There is some truth in this claim; I myself have made the point. But it is far from being the whole truth. It treats the charge of antisemitism as if it were always a cynical ploy. This countercharge, however, is itself too cynical. When I speak of a mindset I am implying that many Jews believe, spontaneously and sincerely, that if you scratch an anti-Zionist you find an antisemite. Furthermore, sometimes it’s true. [1]

As is clear, Klug is not contending that the usage of "new anti-Semitism" (which is what this Wikipedia article is about, after all) is to "silence debate", but usage of the general term "anti-Semite" is claimed by certain people (such as pro-Palestinians) to be misapplied by supporters of Israel and Jews. Guess what, not such a unique idea. Any perceived negative label can be misapplied, with an intent to malign or impugn: be it "fascist" or "communist", "racist" or "hippie". (See, for instance, Godwin's Law). In short, the statement "it is sometimes used to silence debate" does not have much relevance as to whether there is or isn't a contemporary phenomenon of "new anti-Semitism."--Leflyman^Talk 08:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Good research. I'm certain, however, that Norman Finkelstein does make this claim (ie. that the argument of "NAS" is sometimes used to silence debate). I'll get back to you concerning a source. To your latter point: this claim may not disprove the concept, but it does address a perceived misuse of the same. CJCurrie 08:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

My feeling is Finkelstein is not a reliable source as a sole basis of criticism, in that he argues controversies for the sake of being controversial-- not just in my view, but in the view of his colleagues. See for example, 'Shoah Biz' Critic Claims His Views Cost Him Prof Job:

In a March 2000 peer review of Mr. Finkelstein's course on 20th-century political thought, John R. Wallach, an expert on early modern political thought, wrote that he found Mr. Finkelstein's lecture on Adolph Hitler's "Mein Kampf" "disturbing."

"Professor Finkelstein was able to argue that Hitler was a 'creation of Western thought.' That is, he claimed that Hitler's ideas — apart from his virulent anti-Semitism — were no different from commonly held ideas of Western moral and political philosophers (excepting John Stuart Mill)," Mr. Wallach wrote in a peer review that Mr. Finkelstein provided the Forward.

...

In November 2000, Andrew Polsky, a professor of American government at Hunter, accused Mr. Finkelstein of academic one-sidedness in a lecture on Machiavelli's "The Prince."

"What I witnessed, then, was a form of low-level intellectual bullying," Mr. Polsky wrote. He recommended that the department's personnel committee "revisit the decision of whether to retain his services as an adjunct faculty member in the future."

--Leflyman^Talk 17:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

We really oughtn't to get into debates about whether we like Finkelstein or not, if he has something relevant to say, we can quote it (cf Melanie Phillips above).

Despite Alan Dershowitz's best efforts to stop the presses, Finkelstein's book was published by a respectable firm. That's enough to qualify it for inclusion. CJCurrie 00:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

And Klug also says that anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism don't have to occur together, but when they do they are a new anti-Semitism. But different views come together in different ways all the time; and it hardly makes them 'phenomena' on their own unless its outlined that way. To me the concept of New anti-Semitism is more descriptive of a political categorization by one party than something with actual objective purpose. ie, spin. Thats why its funny to me that the article mentions that New anti-Semites assume all Jews are crypto-Zionists, while in most cases that this term applies to most people are assumed to be crypto-anti-Semitic. Well, whatever, if people think that its in the debate enough to make a Wikipedia article worthy. It just highlights one of my concerns though--not that Wikipedia is necessarily agenda driven--but is consumed by a political discourse where different entities are created all the time for political reasons. Wikipedia is literally polluted with 'meta-descriptive' articles compared to the amount of primary historical or descriptive articles. Brianshapiro

New Anti-Semitism has its "revenge" article

Because a left-wing administrator did not "like" the content of this article, a new "revenge article" was created. It started out as one tiny paragraph (listed below),

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_apartheid

Israeli apartheid is a controversial phrase used by some anti-Zionists and Palestinian rights activists to compare the policies of the Israeli government towards Palestinians to those of apartheid-era South Africa towards its Black population.

Now, the "revenge article" has ballooned out of all proportion. The tactic of this left-wing administrator is clear, he simply will not be stopped (unless people come together and stand up against him). Wikipedia is for everyone, it is not one persons personal soap box to spout their views of what "reality should be". 70.30.193.143 20:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I won't be standing up against him. If an article is worth keeping, even if it was created to make a point, I'm going to favour its preservation. This isn't (or shouldn't be) a place to fight the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. --Coroebus 21:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Labeling the article as revenge calls upon us to believe intangibles that we can't prove. And frankly it is unnecessary. The article is a bad article. Just because 1, 2, or 200 million people believe something to be true... doesnt mean it is. It just is a poor article. Greroja 16:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the new anti-semitism is a description applied to some people who hold that Israel is an apartheid state, so I thik it is unlikely that the postition could be "revenge" for the label. There certainly are anti-semites on the right and the left, but let's not lump everybody who holds a viewpoint into one category, or else we are guilty of the intolerance as well. --Aelffin 13:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem with a lot of people today is that they blend the meanings of one word into another. You can't equate disagreement (even based on logic) as intolerance.Greroja 16:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Someone complained that the intro wasn't sourced, so I added the citations that were lost when the compromise intro was put up.

I may try to start a section tonight discussing the complexities of what people are calling new anti-Semitism. I'd like to request that it not be reverted just because it's not immediately perfect, as it may take some time to get it right. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Slim: Since we've disagreed about so much on this page, I should give credit where it's due: I can tell that you're making an effort to be NPOV in your current edits, and I commend you for this.

To ensure that the section is truly NPOV in its final form, I would ask you to clarify that some contributors to the academic debate have disputed the viability of the term. Also, since the definition now apparently includes right-wing anti-Semites again, I wonder if further revisions to the introduction are in order. CJCurrie 01:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I've finished for tonight, but there's more to be done, so I hope people will bear with me. I want to go through the page for flow and reorganize it so that it's readable and has a logic to it rather than being a list of examples, and also so that the criticism is, wherever possible, incorporated into the narrative, rather than being stuck on the end. I also think some of the examples we give of attacks might count as OR, because it's not clear who's saying they are examples of new anti-Semitism, so they may have to go. I also have some books here that give a more nuanced view of what's going on, and it might be worth saying more about Yehuda Bauer's idea of a "fourth wave" of anti-Semitism. I'll be doing my best throughout to be NPOV, so if something appears not to be, it will likely be only because I haven't finished the writing.

The page is currently in a bit of a rough state because there's now some repetition, but I'll get it sorted out soon. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Also just to make clear, I'll hopefully be including more than Klug in the "old phenomenon" section. I need to go through the sources and pick out the best arguments, and will try to do that tomorrow. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I also took a look at the sources and this is what I've found 1. book source, unverifiable (look if it can be found on Google Books for instance) 2. personal homepage 3. newspaper article, good source 4. book source, unverifiable 5. lecture by Yehuda Bauer, good source, but only to his own views 6. non-web source, unverifiable 7. non-web source, unverifiable 8. good source 9. looks like an editorial 10. partisan site, but as it's only used to give source for their views it's OK 11. only used to give source for his views, so it's OK 12. same source 13. not a reliable source 14. same as 8. 15. same as 8. 16. same as 8. 17. non-web source, unverifiable 18. same as 17. 19. same as 17. 20. same as 17. 21. same as 5. 22. same as 5. 23. same as 5. 24. same as 5. 25. impossible to tell if it's an editorial or not 26. same as 5. 27. same as 5. 28. same as 5. 29. same as 5. 30. same as 5. 31. same as 5. 32. same as 5. 33. looks like a good source, but says nothing about "new anti-Semitism" 34. looks like a good source, but says nothing about "new anti-Semitism" 35. not a source, but does mention that Chip Berlet says nothing about "new anti-Semitism" 36. not really a source either. Also what is opinions and what is facts? 37. What is opinions and what is facts? 38. non-web source, unverifiable 39. non-web source, unverifiable 40. no idea what "Institute for Counter-Terrorism" is. Seems to be an Israeli think tank. 41. non-web source, unverifiable 42. non-web source, unverifiable 43. is Syrian TV a reliable source? Anyway, in this context I guess it's OK (perhaps a bit undue weight) 44. non-web source, unverifiable 45. non-web source, unverifiable 46. non-web source, unverifiable 47. good source, but no NAS (also a bit undue weight) 48. good source, but no NAS (also a bit undue weight) 49. book source, unverifiable 50. no mention of NAS, also - fact or opinion? 51. good source, no mention of NAS, clearly opinion and not fact 52. good source for opinions 53. opinions, but then it's clearly labelled as such 54. good source, but questionable if the source support the claim 55. ditto 56. non-web source, unverifiable 57. non-web source, unverifiable 58. not a source 59. non-web source, unverifiable 60. questionable source, but it's only used about his own views so it's probably OK 61. same as 60 62. newspaper article, good source 63. looks good 64. non-web source, unverifiable 65. non-web source, unverifiable 66. two sources in one, should be split. Neither of them mentions NAS 67. non-web source, unverifiable 68. No mention of NAS 69. 404 70. No mention of NAS 71. non-web source, unverifiable 72. non-web source, unverifiable 73. impossible to tell if it's an editorial or not 74. good source, but opinions in the source are presented as fact in the Wikipedia article. No mention of NAS 75. No mention of NAS 76. No mention of NAS 77. No mention of NAS 78. No mention of NAS 79. 404 80. No mention of NAS

// Liftarn

Liftarn, with respect, this is meaningless. Just because something is a book doesn't mean it's "unverifiable." The sources used in this article are some of the best academic sources available on the topic. You could try going to a library. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It is unverifiable in the sense that it's impossible to check it. It's no way to tell if the editor inserting those claims are honest or just waving a hand in a general direction and saying "It's in there somewhere.". Anyway, a lot of the sources make no mention of NAS and there are entire sections of this article that just lists various (probably) anti-Semitic incidents. David Duke is featured prominently, but his anti-Semitism is of the old version. // Liftarn

How do you know the sources don't mention NAS if they're "impossible to check"? Anyway, it isn't necessary for them to use that precise phrase, so long as they're talking about the concept of a resurgence of AS coming from a different direction. As for Duke, have you read the article? Part of the phenomenon is the alleged relationship between Islamists, the far right, and the left. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The entire section The far right and Islamism seems to more about what the British National Front called "The New Alliance", i.e. co-operation between Libya's colonel Khadaffi, Iran's ayatollah Khomeini, the American black Muslim Louis Farrakhan, and the NF. I don't know if there's a better name for it, but it should probably be split into it's own article. // Liftarn 16:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

In what sense is it "impossible to check it"? These are books written by well-known authors and published by mainstream publishers, available in or via any public or academic library, and available for purchase on Amazon. Possibly also available on Google books. By "impossible," do you in fact mean: "not checkable via the usual ten-second Google search"? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. There is no way to easily tell is the claim is true or not.

What do you mean? All you have to do is look at the books. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This article is badly need some trimming. For instance the list of anti-Semitic incidents. What has it to do with NAS? // Liftarn 16:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

What list of anti-Semitic incidents? Liftarn, I don't have time to respond to these points. The article is well-sourced, and it uses good sources rather than the usual websites you seem to be used to, and there is no list of anti-Semitic incidents, and the David Duke section is central to the concept, so all in all, you seem not to have understood or read the article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources is quite clear that books from reputable publishers are excellent sources, typically better than most of what can be found online. It's nice when there is a convenience link to an online copy of something, but a pretty small percentage of the Web is citable, whereas most books are. - Jmabel | Talk 06:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Section on conspiracism

I'm continuing with the rewrite/copy edit, currently working on a Conspiracism section. I'm rewriting some of it from scratch, and also moving sections of the existing article around, so it will continue to look a bit rough while it's in progress, and sections may be repeated. Please bear with me. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

If anyone strongly objects to what I'm doing, or wants to edit, either leave a note here, or e-mail me (I'll probably see an e-mail sooner than a post here.) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Slim: let me clarify that my recent edit was intended to be cooperative. If you don't think the information belongs in the article, let me know. (If there was an edit conflict, I apologize -- the possibility didn't occur to me until after I'd finished.) CJCurrie 00:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about adding that people are Jewish. We're using a lot of sources, some of them are Jews, some not, and with some I don't know. Trying to find out who is and isn't Jewish and pointing it out is tricky for a number of reasons. I think I'd prefer to leave it out until others weigh in with an opinion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, though I also think that the information is relevant as regards Kaufman's views of Israel and the Sharon government. I won't return it before others weigh in, though. CJCurrie 01:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with SV: it's not appropriate to attempt to categorise a source's ethnicity or religion as a justification for a particular view. Providing their credentials is enough, as an author, professor or associate of some particular organisation. (As I added to the Earl Raab section)--Leflyman^Talk 04:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

In that case, would you agree to note that Kaufman has historically supported the Israeli Labour Party? CJCurrie 01:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Additional articles for review as source material

Here are some additional articles which discuss or touch on the subject, and may be appropriate to use as references:

"Welcome to York U, where tolerance is no longer tolerated" (Margaret Wente, Globe and Mail, 11 March 2003):

"In January, the university almost cancelled a speech by well-known Middle Eastern expert Daniel Pipes, after pro-Palestinian students and faculty accused him of racism. (In leftist politics, "racism" is now synonymous with sympathy toward Israel.) "No free speech for racists," they argued, as if Dr. Pipes were another Ernst Zundel. The university's Centre for International and Security Studies disinvited Dr. Pipes to a meeting with students because it was "uneasy" about him. The York University Faculty Association wrote a letter to its members accusing Dr. Pipes of being "committed to a racist agenda."

"The new anti-semitism" (The Spectator, Mar 22, 2003 by Phillips, Melanie) (which I referenced as "The new nexus of anti-semitism", above):

"The key motif is a kind of Holocaust inversion, with the Israelis being demonised as Nazis and the Palestinians being regarded as the new Jews. Israel and the Jews are being systematically delegitimised and dehumanised - a necessary prelude to their destruction - with both Islamists and the Western media using anti-Zionism as a fig-leaf for prejudices rooted in both mediaeval Christian and Nazi demonology.

"This has produced an Orwellian situation in which hatred of the Jews now marches behind the Left's banner of antiracism and human rights, giving rise not merely to distortions, fabrications and slander about Israel in the media but also to mainstream articles discussing the malign power of the Jews over American and world policy."

"Who hates the Jews now?" (The Spectator, Nov 29, 2003 by Strauss, Mark):

"[A]nother clement of the new anti-Semitism, which has little to do with Middle East politics, is often overlooked: the backlash against globalisation. The timeframe for this resurgence of Judaeophobia corresponds with the intensification of international links that has been taking place since the 1990s."[...]

"In their war against globalisation, the far Right has also found common cause with the new Left. Matt Hale, the leader of the US white supremacist World Church of the Creator, praised the 1999 anti-globalisation protesters in Seattle for shutting down 'talks of the Jew World Order'..."

"The truth about anti-Semitism in Europe" (Mary Dejevsky, The Independent (London), Feb 20, 2004):

"That anti-Semitism persists in Europe - and in other parts of the world, including North America - does not make it in any way acceptable. But to call what is happening in Europe a "rising tide" of anti-Semitism is a gross exaggeration. At its least malevolent, the accusation may reflect innocent over-simplification. There are times, however, when it seems to conceal a political calculation whose intentions are very far from innocent."

[...]

"At the same time, it is hard to escape the impression that it suits the US Administration to depict Europe, especially France, as deeply and incorrigibly anti-Semitic. It helps to rationalise the divisions between the US and Europe and "explain" mainland Europe's opposition to the war in Iraq. American officials who should, and do, know better are throwing together Nazism, anti-Semitism, racism and hostility to Israel and Ariel Sharon in one indiscriminate heap. They are playing with fire and risk provoking the very racist backlash they purport to be trying to prevent."

Lecturers back boycott of Israeli academics (Benjamin Joffe-Walt, The Guardian, Tuesday May 30, 2006):

Britain's largest lecturers' union yesterday voted in favour of a boycott of Israeli lecturers and academic institutions who do not publicly dissociate themselves from Israel's "apartheid policies".

[...]

David Hirsh, an AUT member, added: "It may not have anti-semitic motivations, but if you organise an academic boycott of Israeli Jewish academics but no one else in the world, that is an anti-semitic policy. What's Natfhe going to do? Set up a committee before which Israeli academics will be hauled?"

It may be notable (if not here, then in the Israeli apartheid article) that Professor Brian Klug has rejected the contention of the lecturer's union, writing earlier this month, "Spare us the analogies,

"In short, the intention of the Natfhe motion - what it seeks and why - is obscure. But even if the policy and rationale were clear and unambiguous, there is a deeper problem with motions of this sort that prevents them from attracting a broad base of support: they rely on the false (or limited) analogy implied by the word "apartheid". This is not to say that there are no points of comparison, for there are - just as there are in a host of other countries where minority ethnic and national groups are oppressed. Nor is it even to say that the suffering experienced by Palestinians is less than that endured by "non-whites" in South Africa: it may or may not be (although I am not sure how to do the sums). But as I have argued elsewhere: "The validity of the analogy does not depend on a catalogue of atrocities, however appalling"."

Also, I'd strongly suggest a reading of the detailed and indepth article, "The old-new anti-semitism" (The National Interest, Summer 2003 edition) by Robert Wistrick, Neuberger Professor of Modern History at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the head of its International Centre for the Study of Anti-Semitism:

"Whether the assault comes from the far Left or Right, from liberals or fundamentalists, its focus now is above all the collective Jew embodied in the State of Israel. Despite the incessant hairsplitting over the need to separate anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, this has in recent decades become a distinction without a meaningful difference. Whatever theoretical contortions one may indulge in, the State of Israel is a Jewish state. Whoever wants to defame or destroy it, openly or through polic ies that entail nothing else but such destruction, is in effect practicing the Jew-hatred of yesteryear, whatever their self-proclaimed intentions."

--Leflyman^Talk 06:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Leflyman. Those are great sources. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

What is the new anti-Semitism?

I think I've more or less finished the first section called What is the new anti-Semitism?. There are four subsections, each dealing with a different argument, rather than using sources who simply assert that this/that is/isn't anti-Semitism.

The first sub-section says that there is such a thing as the new anti-Semitism, using as sources Jack Fischel, historian; Pierre-André Taguieff, philosopher; Irwin Cotler, former minister of Justice in Canada; Jonathan Sacks, Britain's chief rabbi; and Mark Strass, journalist.
The second sub-section says the world is experiencing a wave of anti-Semitism, but that there's nothing new about it, using journalist Brian Klug. I'm going to try to add another source here, possibly historian Robert Wistrich, who I believe argues the same thing, although from a different perspective.
The third sub-section says there is a new and disproportionate focus on Jews and Israel, but that it isn't anti-Semitism, using Steven Zipperstein, historian at Stanford.
The fourth sub-section says there is a new wave of anti-Semitism, the fourth since the war, but that the underlying latency is the old anti-Semitism, using historian Yehuda Bauer, with a quote from historian Robert Wistrich. Bauer argues that this wave is particularly dangerous because of Islamism.

I've also created a section on Conspiracism, where I tried to explain the background to the new alliance between right, left, and the Muslim world, and the various theories and allegations that abound about Jews, which some writers identify as examples of the new anti-Semitism (or fourth wave of the old anti-Semitism).

Otherwise, I tried to tidy the rest, and moved sections around to improve the flow a little. There are some sections it might be best to delete e.g. the country-specific incidents, but I've left them in to see what others think. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I've reordered a couple of the discussion paragraphs in "A new phenomenon" to keep quoted sources together. They were intermingled which lead to the confusing appearance of a sort of dialogue between the sources. --Leflyman^Talk 18:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

It was intended that way to avoid the appearance of a list. :-) Also, Jack Fischel should come near the top, because his is the main and most complete def. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I tweaked it a little for flow, and you were right: it's better the way you edited it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Slim, would you agree to the addition of a fifth section covering the views expressed by Norman Finkelstein and Tony Judt?

(I should clarify that the views held by these authors do not entirely coincide with those of Brian Klug. Finkelstein has argued that claims of increased anti-Semitism are not entirely inaccurate, but have been exaggerated for political ends. Judt has been particularly vocal in his assertion that the extent of European anti-Semitism has been exaggerated.) CJCurrie 01:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I was hoping we wouldn't have to use people like Finkelstein, Chomsky, Foxman, and Chesler as main sources, because they're so predictable, and tend to assert rather than argue. I have no problem basing a section on Judt, but I've just read his article in The Nation [2] and I don't quite see what his argument is. He seems to say there both is and isn't a new form of anti-Semitism, and also seems at different times to say there's a resurgence of anti-Semitism and there isn't. Can you summarize the argument? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

To your first point: yes, I suppose that's probably a good idea. As to Judt, I thought that he was in the "resurgence-is-greatly-overstated" camp, but I'll look over the sources to be sure. CJCurrie 04:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I think he is saying that a little, although at other times in the article he attributes any resurgence to people's responses to Israel, so I wasn't quite sure which way he was swinging in the end. I'll read it again more carefully. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd say including Judt as a "mainstream" critic would be appropriate. Finkelstein less so. On a cursory read of Judt's piece in The Nation, I'd say he does acknowledge a rise in antisemitic incidents in Europe, while his point is such incidents aren't out of proportion to those in the US. His general contention is that scholars and writers (such as historian Omer Bartov) are wrong to conflate anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism. Although, he counters his own argument (as SV noticed) by including claims that, "It is increasingly clear to observers in France, for example, that assaults on Jews in working-class suburbs of big cities are typically driven by frustration and anger at the government of Israel." He has some off-the-wall statements later in the piece which give it an overall shrill "Israel doesn't speak for me" tone, but that seems to be his mode since writing the October 2003 "Israel: The Alternative" in the New York Review of Books, particular after what Leon Wieseltier said about him in The Forward [3], and the subsequent fallout from his article. --Leflyman^Talk 05:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I certainly have no objections if someone wants to put a section together on his position. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Suggested new section: NAS on the Internet

I was struck by one critical factor in what distinguishes the "old" form of antisemitism from the emergence of the "new": easy access to antisemitic materials and individuals via the Internet. I find this to be a gaping ommission in the article. Whereas in the past, people had to actively go out of their way to find such fringe literature/groups, now it is readily distributed through numerous online sources-- making it increasingly sophisticated in its dissemination.

While this may also be considered background for the AUT boycott discussion, it might be appropriate for a section about "New anti-Semitism on the Internet" or "New anti-Semitism distribution."

See, for example: Wendy Campbell, whose writings appear on numerous left- and extremist-right-wing sites, including Indymedia, Jeff Rense's website, and the openly antisemitic "Jewish Tribal Review", National Vanguard, and Christian Party (hyperlinks in comments)

Two years ago, the University of Birmingham banned staff personal websites after a Jerusalem Post article revealed that lecturer Sue Blackwell, one the sponsors of the AUT boycott initiative, had links on her website to Campbell (whom the article described as a "neo-Nazi activist").[4] [5] Blackwell has since renounced and removed any such linkage: ("In denial on the internet", TheRundown.co.uk, 26 Jan 2006)

By self-admission, Campbell's site personifies the "nexus" of left-right anti-Zionist NAS:

MarWen Media, founded by media "mogul" Wendy Campbell, a self-avowed progressive "leftie" and joined by colleagues such as Mark Green, a self-avowed conservative "right-winger" who voted for Pat Buchanon in the last election, represents the emerging and growing trend of a new alliance between the left and the right for a common cause: a deep concern for the welfare of the people of our country, the United States of America, and preservation of the hard-won democratic values upon which our country was founded.

WE BELIEVE that old labels of what makes someone Left and Right , or Progressive or Conservative are all almost meaningless when it comes to the issue of US foreign policy on the Middle East, and most specifically, the "special relationship" between our country and Israel.[6]

(note: I made major edits to the Campbell article)--Leflyman^Talk 07:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, Leflyman. By the way, I've been using the sources you posted, so thanks again for those.

Humus, good job on finding that other Octopus image. Berlet does actually use the word "Octopus" in his article (for shadow government, new world order etc), so I added that to the text. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for finding a use for them, and for your vast improvements to the article. I might suggest that the recent boycott proposal passed by Britain's NATFHE might get a mention (or perhaps a clarification that the NATFHE boycott was a separate motion than the one passed by AUT). While it was swiftly dismissed as "non-binding" due to the merger with AUT [7], it did make some waves. Some recent editorials of note, from The Guardian: "Israeli university boycott: how a campaign backfired"; and its response, "Freedom to think"--Leflyman^Talk 08:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I added a mention of the recent one, using one of the sources you posted earlier: "The proposal was overturned at an emergency conference on May 26, 2005, but was revived again in May 2006, when the union once again voted to boycott Israeli lecturers and academic institutions who do not publicly dissociate themselves from their government's policies. The resolution, which is only "advisory" to the union, has brought "dishonour and sheer ridicule" upon the membership, according to Ronnie Frazer of the International Academic Friends of Israel." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's where a clarification needs to go: the most recent one was initiated by a different teachers' union, NATFHE-- a separate organisation from AUT, which floated the original one. The two unions have since merged into a new body, University and College Union (UCU), which nullified the NATFHE boycott vote. The article's wording makes it sound as if it were the same proposal by the same union. As noted above, please see the May 30 relase by AUT regarding their position on the matter: [8]--Leflyman^Talk 15:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, will do, or feel free to tweak it. I lost track of who was voting for which thing and what was or wasn't binding on whom. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Finkelstein

CJC, I take your point about the voiceover so I left that part out, but I restored the rest, because he clearly knew what kind of program it was, and the interview is utterly bizarre. You can't tell from the transcript, but watch the clip. In the interests of BLP, I won't say here what it looked like. And he does very much cast doubt on the numbers. Given how recent an interview it was, and given that it's exactly what we're discussing here (Left, Islam, new anti-Semitism), we have no reason not to mention it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Chris, if you want to reword this to make it fairer to him, by all means go ahead, but that he's giving interviews to Middle East television shows about the Holocaust is directly relevant to this article, so it shouldn't be left out. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

My name isn't Chris. To your points:

He casts doubt on the number of survivors, basing his argument on the "efficiency of the Nazi killing machine". This isn't holocaust denial, by any stretch of the imagination.

While he may very well have been aware of the sort of program it was, he clearly did not echo the host's sentiments about Irving and others. Mentioning it by way introducing NF is a transparent effort to "poison the well"; you could perhaps justify its inclusion later in the piece, though I suspect it may constitute OR even then.

"Utterly bizarre" is your POV. From what I could tell, NF was (i) affirming the reality of the Holocaust and (ii) criticizing its misuse for political ends. Considering the audience, I think he deserves credit for (i) in particular. CJCurrie 02:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

A constructive suggestion to avoid a revert war:

Could I recommend that the reference be included later in the article, in a separate section. As it currently stands, it seems looks as though its primary purpose is to discredit. CJCurrie 02:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for calling you Chris. I was just talking to a Chris, and I got mixed up.

Where later in the article would you like to see it? I've now added exactly what he did say, using a source. It is not OR. We're talking about the fusion of the left and Islam. We're talking about the far right giving interviews to Middle East TV shows about the Holocaust. Here we have Finkelstein doing it, and very recently. It's clearly and directly relevant. He deserves credit? He could have tried not giving the interview. Please watch the clip. I defy anyone to watch it and not find it bizarre. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's take this point-by-point:

(i) "Here we have Finkelstein doing it"? Doing what, may I ask? If you mean "denying the holocaust", he plainly is not. There's nothing in the interview which suggests, even for a moment, that he is denying the reality or the extent of the holocaust. (Finkelstein isn't far-right or far-left, btw. I'm not really sure where he'd fall on the political spectrum.)

(ii) The introduction is repugnant, of course, but Finkelstein had nothing to do with it and I doubt he was even aware of it prior to the broadcast. The unfortunate reality is that these statements are fairly common in the mainstream Arab media, and that people who want to reach the Arab public are often forced to deal with hosts who hold such views. Boycotting such media is one option. Confronting it is another.

NF chose the latter option. Whether this was strategically wise is open for debate, but I believe that he chose the best possible follow-through for the "confrontation" approach. He went on a prominent Lebanese television show and affirmed the reality of the holocaust. Westerners might miss the significance of this, but I think it took a certain amount of bravery. (And doesn't it seem to you that the host looks uncomfortable in these moments, fidgeting with the papers and so forth?)

I maintain that Finkelstein cannot be held morally or causally responsible for the statements made by the host in the introduction.

(iii) This interview is only one part of a much larger debate. Norman Finkelstein has written an entire book criticizing (what he describes as) the misuse of memory of The Holocaust for political ends. This does not mean that he questions the reality of the holocaust itself; both of his parents were holocaust survivors, and (if there's any doubt) he specifically affirms the reality and extent of the holocaust in Beyond Chutzpah.

He has given several interviews on this subject, in a variety of media outlets. The entire question of a "Holocaust industry" probably deserves an article of its own -- mentioning it only with reference to this interview seems to be "poisoning the well" on a number of levels. (addendum: it turns out that there is a page for NF's book, The Holocaust Industry. CJCurrie 02:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC))

(iv) If this interview is to be mentioned, it should be in an "perceived examples of NAS" section (and then as part of the larger debate). CJCurrie 02:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

This isn't the place to argue out the issues, but I have to disagree that NF "confronted" them. He didn't say a single thing that didn't fit 100 per cent into their world view, which is doubtless why they invited him on in the first place, and he's been around too long not to know they would use him. Please watch the clip. No sign of him being anything but 100 per cent in charge of the interview, and yet he said nothing to contradict them or give them pause for thought. Not one word. (Where did he "affirm the reality" of the Holocaust? Even the TV station admits that 50,000 might have died, attributing the figure outrageously to Raul Hilberg.) The host didn't look uncomfortable. She looked and sounded bored, because he was speaking so slowly and in such a wooden way, and kept repeating himself. How many times did he say "Nazi holocaust"?

I do take your point about poisoning the well, and it's something I tried hard not to do as I was writing this. But there comes a point when someone has poisoned his own well, and it's not for us to ignore. David Duke goes on mid-east tv and talks about the dishonesty of Jews, and now NF does it, also saying Jews are dishonest for inflating survivor figures. Our article is precisely about how the left is now doing what the far right does, in relation to Jews and Islam, and here's a prime example of it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

David Duke goes on mid-east tv and talks about the dishonesty of Jews, and now NF does it. No he hasn't. Read the transcript again. There isn't one section of the interview where NF blames "the Jews" for anything. He's blamed certain groups for inflating survivor figures for political purposes. This isn't even close to the same thing.

To your first point, please tell me how this would fit into the host's worldview:

Well, one of the points I tried to make in the book is that there has been a gross inflation of the number of survivors of the Nazi Holocaust. In fact, as all the historians have shown, Hitler's extermination of the Jews was very efficient. It was like a factory, an assembly line. Jews were processed to be murdered. When you have such an efficient system there can't be very many survivors.

The dishonesty of Jews fits into their worldview. That's all they want to hear. Victims, survivors, who cares. The Jews are lying again, that's all that matters. Do you think the Syrian TV interviewer understood more than a fraction of what David Duke was on about? What matters is the repetition of the choice phrases: Jews, in control, ethnocentrists, Jewish supremacists, dishonest, Nazis, no war for Israel. The actual sentences the words appear in are almost irrelevant. Same with the Finkelstein interview. Jews, Holocaust, numbers, inflation, industry, exploitation, blackmail. Interview in the can. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

That's all they want to hear, SlimVirgin? You misrepresent Finkelstein's words, get called on it, and then project the selective hearing, cherry-picking, and reading-comprehension issues onto "them"? Who are "they," by the way? The Arabs? --G-Dett 15:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Dishonesty of Jews is not what Finkelstein argues, and I don't believe it's his responsibility if someone interprets it that way. CJCurrie 03:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

These are his own words from just that interview: a "gross inflation of the number of survivors"; the "Holocaust industry wanted to blackmail Europe"; "in order to [do that], they said there were hundreds of thousands of needy Holocaust victims"; they "started to inflate the number of survivors ..." This is implying dishonesty, a fraud. He is not saying it happened by accident. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Those are his words, but he is not accusing "the Jews" of fraud. He's accusing specific group/s of fraud. One could argue (and Finkelstein himself has implied) that part of his motivation for addressing the issue is to preserve the honour of family members who perished in the holocaust.

Finkelstein has written an entire book on what he describes as "The Holocaust Industry". I find the term somewhat distasteful and I don't endorse his arguments in full, but I don't think it does justice to his position to wrench the phrase out of context. There's a long-standing debate about both the book and the terminology -- and we should mention these if we're going to reference the term. CJCurrie 23:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

You may object that NF didn't specifically reference the number of people killed. My response: he has, elsewhere. Also, doesn't it seem that there are a strikingly large number of "[...]" symbols in the interview. I have to wonder if certain vital information was clipped.

On the general point: I don't think NF would dispute that he's an extremely controversial figure, and I'll acknowledge that there are times when I've been extremely uncomfortable with things he's said. This, however, is just another reason why we should be very careful in writing these sections -- so as not to defame someone with by association or with an out-of-context quote. CJCurrie 03:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

You keep mentioning "guilt by association", but you are using it in a way that makes zero sense. You are essentially arguing that we are not allowed to mention an interview that NK gave because the program also aired an unpopular view. I'm sorry but where is the logic in that? Nobody is saying that Finkelstein has the same exact views, the passage is only stating that he gave the interview, which is clearly notable.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, I can't find anything on his website saying he was misled and didn't realize the voiceover was going to say perhaps only 50,000 died. If you had been inadvertently associated with that view, wouldn't you want to set the record straight? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The interview was broadcast a very short time ago. I'm not even certain the NF has seen the TV clip. Perhaps we'll hear something from him in the near future. CJCurrie 03:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, if you want to take it out, I won't revert you again. You're right that we should give him the benefit of the doubt. However, I hope we can revisit the issue, perhaps after he's had more time to respond on his website (though the interview was broadcast 13 days ago, I believe). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I have not seen this broadcast nor have I read Finkelstein's book, but I have read at least one article by him and several about him (including book reviews), and it is my impression that there is nothing in The Holocaust Industry that even borders on Holocaust denial; what he is saying, for the most part, is that the money that has been paid out in compensation for the Holocaust has rarely in significant measure benefitted actual survivors or heirs of victims; that an analogous statement could be made about political capital; and that there are people and institutions that have systematically used other people's suffering for their own economic and political benefit. One might read anti-Semitism into the fact that the people he is effectively accusing some Jews of extortion, but he seems equally focused on the fact that people are exploiting the memory of Jews who died (and, in some degree, exploiting Jewish survivors). - Jmabel | Talk 18:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Finkelstein has addressed this on his website. It seems that MEMRI edited out the sections where he said that no rational person disputes the fact that between five and six million Jews were systematically killed during the Nazi holocaust. NF made this statement twice during the interview, and MEMRI replaced both references with ellipses. I don't think citing the MEMRI clip would serve any useful purpose. CJCurrie 04:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

In fairness, Finkelstein says he said this, and someone (maybe him too) is saying that Memri edited it out. I have trouble believing that, and we've seen no evidence. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Do I read that as "In fairness, I'll concede the indisputable, but I won't give another inch"? Why would you think it more likely that MEMRI was honest in its use of materials than that Finkelstein was misrepresented? - Jmabel | Talk 04:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I've lost track of what's in dispute, and what giving another inch refers to. Finkelstein says that Memri edited out some of his interview. We have no evidence that they did this. I find it unlikely that they would, but then I also haven't seen where Finkelstein said they did. What does he say exactly, and where? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Saperstein on Finkelstein

I've removed the material from the Saperstein essay which only dealt with part II of Beyond Chutzpah (the critique of Dershowitz). A summary of Saperstein's thoughts on Finkelstein's thoughts on the quality of Dershowitz's scholarship has no bearing on "the new anti-Semitism." While most of the Saperstein review indeed focuses on Finkelstein's critique of Dershowitz, Saperstein does say a few things about Finkelstein's arguments regarding "the new anti-Semitism," so I've substituted these for the irrelevant stuff. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by G-Dett (talk • contribs) 30 August 2006.

Please take a look now. I've reduced the main image thumbnail and added an extra space for buffer. The thumbnail could be bumped back up to 200px width, so long as additional line-feeds are added (as was done with the scrolling version). Which browsers seem to have problems with the floating TOC? I've checked it on Windows Internet Explorer and both WinXP and Mac Firefox, as well as Safari on Mac. At 800x600, the first subhead got "squished", but the additional spacing should correct that. I'd suggest we might avoid the scrolling TOC, as it seems to have different problems browser-wise (as well as being non-standard, based on one editor's subpage). --Leflyman^Talk 22:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

If you go to WP:TOC, there's a section about the problems. It's not the image that's the problem, but the floating TOC within the text. If you don't mind, I'm going to return it to the way it was. Is it the sliding TOC you don't like, or the white space under the normal one? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, now I see you mentioned the other TOC. I'll restore it, and if you want to change it to a normal TOC, that's fine too, but the floating one looks too crowded with the text around it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

There's something called a compact TOC too. I'll see if I can work out how to use it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Just read through WP:TOC#Floating_the_TOC and none of the concerns seem to apply in this case. There's no mention of browser-specific issues. With the length of the TOC, it seems to be appropriate to float it left: "A floating TOC should be used when it is beneficial to the layout of the article, or when the default TOC gets in the way of other elements." I've reduced the width it takes up to less than 30% of screen real-estate, so it shouldn't create a narrow text column. A compact TOC wouldn't really be appropriate, as they are aimed principally for lists. --Leflyman^Talk 22:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The left is incompatible with racism

The left is by definition incompatible with racism. The right is still the real source of anti-semitism. Liberalism is the first word that comes to mind when trying to describe what is commonly referred to as the 'left' and the wikipedia article on 'left wing' agrees on that. The article on liberalism says "Racism is incompatible with liberalism" and generally I don't think lots of people see the definition of the 'left' containing something much different from that.

It is my understanding the left even if it is drawn temporarily into racism, for example in the form of anti-semitism, it only needs to be reminded it only meant racism, to be completely disgusted about such practices and leave it behind.

I had some experience from a local indymedia website recently. We were expressing compaints about people that not only had complaints about Israili policies (which was obviously acceptable there) but were insisting in referring to israilis as "jews" and jews this and jews that. It easily looked suspicious. It doesn't take long (after some users ask questions of the type "why not say Israel, what Jews have to do with politics?") to realize many of them are in actuality not that friendly to the "left".

The "good" news are, some seem to be only influenced in the expressions used in right wing articles with weasel phrases and only need to be reminded of racism and be disgusted of anti-semitism or the use of phrases that may be influenced by it.

After all, the left is by definition anti-racist. --62.1.128.251 16:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that some elements of the left claim that Israel is a racist state. The claims that Israel is oppressing the Palestinians (and covering it up) are something that I personally have heard from many socialists. The left is incompatible with racism, yes, but opposition from the left to the Jewish state's right to exist is something that is present in the world. The anti-war poster at the beginning of this article is a good example of this--Socialists, leftists, who are Anti-Semitic. Kari Hazzard (talk | contrib) 17:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but lets not confuse anti-Isreali politics, which is a settler-colonialist state that is an illegal occupying rogue nation (all views consistent with leftism), with being anti-Semitic, which is completely different based in an irrational ideology, itself used for purposes of oppression of a people. This is alien to the left. Can the right-wing take up some of the arguments and images against Isreal by the left for their own opportunistic purpose? Yes, and they do. However, there is a line between being critical and opposed to Zionism, even as a form of a critque as nationalist racism, and those of the anti-semities; is a line that can be clearly distinguised when examined.Giovanni33 18:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Israel is not an "illegal occupying rogue nation" any more than the US, Australia or Japan are. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 19:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

That the left is incompatible with racism is a huge presumption based on no evidence. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

(Just what I was going to post) Racism has no political orientation, nor does "liberalism" immediately equate to intelligence. Being "left" isn't an inoculation against have prejudiced views, or discriminatory practices. In fact, the extreme expression of leftist politics, Communism, claimed to be an "anti-racist" ideology, but in practice in the Soviet Union held official anti-Semitism as a state institution. "Extremists" elements on any political spectrum can be more like each other, than their particular "wing". (One rarely hears of "moderate extremist" except, perhaps in jest).--Leflyman^Talk 18:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

At the same time, the largest part of the self-proclaimed left of today claims the soviet union and especially its stalinist years were fascist and not actually part of the left. --62.1.128.251 19:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see, you mean that no "True" leftists are racist. —Gabbe 21:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Or even that no true racists are leftist. :-D SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it needs rephrasing. Most identifying themeselves as "left" these days don't go around advertising the soviet union. Left doesn't mean only the radical extreme far-left or some stalinist communist party, it's also the center-left which identifies itself as liberal, as that is dominating democratic countries along with the center-right nowadays --62.1.221.194 21:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a page for discussing the article. Is there a point you'd like to make about the article? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I think the article needs more depth on what is meant by "left" or it may be considered offensive to self-proclaimed leftists who don't associate with racism and anti-semitism. It will prolly be beneficial to include the points such as racism in Soviet Union mentioned above and at the same time separate that kind of "leftists" from the (probably wider) polulation of leftists who actively don't promote racism and anti-semitism and usually fight against them. --62.1.221.194 22:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

omg sorry :< I just realized the only page I read that was referring to New Antisemitism was the normal Antisemitism page (I had saved the pages for offline viewing). Sorry about that. I feel like a complete idiot now :) --62.1.221.194 22:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

No worries. I've done it myself. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

POV quote

Rod Liddle wrote: "Professor Mona Baker 'unappointed' two Israeli academics from the journal for which she worked. She hopes that, none the less, she can still be friends with them. I hope they punch her on the nose. Her husband, Ken, whined that they had received 15,000 emails in 24 hours, many 'abusive and obscene'. Just 15,000, huh? Better keep them coming."

Leflyman, you've removed the best bit of the article. ;-D SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Amusing yes; encyclopedic, not so much. Actually, I had initially thought it was vandalism that snuck into the section (since it didn't have an end-quote); on re-reading, I see that it was part of the quote from Liddle-- which is still not really appropriate to an NPOV article. I've removed the remainder of the quote as being redundant. There's now appeared an excess in that one section dealing with the Mona Baker incident, and discussing just one source's view. This needs to be slimmed down (no pun intended).--Leflyman^Talk 21:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The Mona Baker case was regarded as important in part because it turned a lot of people against the idea of a boycott, even people who had previously been supportive, and also because it's a good example of the recurrent anti-Semitic motifs that Gerstenfeld talks about: you can be a professor so long as you convert to Christianity, the modern equivalent of which is to denounce the Israeli government or Zionism, or leave Israel, which is what Baker allegedly offered. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

There's an excessive discussion in this one section on Gerstenfeld's views of Baker and a bit of histrionics in emphasising Baker's wrongheadedness as being an important example of anti-Semitism, without any other comparable examples. Gerstenfeld actually gives significantly more space to the Andrew Wilkie descrimination case-- however, I'm of the mind that this may be a example of the misapplication of NAS. Oxford Professor Wilkie replied to an Israeli student who had inquired about a position at his lab: "no way would I take on somebody who had served in the Israeli army." It may have been Wilkie's error in judgement expressing his personal beliefs on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to a potential applicant, but it was blown up into a full-on investigation of Wilkie's "prejudiced views". What's most troubling, however, is Gerstenfeld's view of the matter, and his recommendations:

"Israel and its allies have stumbled on a paradigm to attack the boycotters. Its major lesson is: "take the boycotters on one by one and expose them as racists who discriminate against people because of their country of origin." This effort should be shared by as many organizations as possible. Only time will tell whether the Wilkie case is indeed a turning point in the academic boycott against Israel. What is certain, however, is that the approach which turned Prof. Wilkie within a few days from the accuser into the accused can be copied and refined in similar future cases."

--Leflyman^Talk 23:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The Rod Liddle quote is vivid, and Wikipedia could use more vivid writing. I don't see where NPOV is a problem: we're not saying this in Wikipedia's voice. On the other hand, balance would suggest that if this is quoted, then an equally strident pro-boycott voice should also be heard in the article. - Jmabel | Talk 18:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Stevertigo

Stevertigo, I've had to revert your complete re-write of the consensus introduction for a number of reasons. To begin with, it was (astonishingly) done in the name of "NPOV", while making all sorts of biased claims as if they were fact. For example, you write Proponents of the concept claim that "new" anti-Semtism is associated with certain left-wing political views, and, in the context of the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict, represents a political union of Western humanists sympathetic to Palestinians under Israeli aparthied. This is, of course, completely false; proponents do not make this argument at all, since they do not consider those "New anti-Semites" to be "humanists", and they certainly don't agree that Palestinians live under "Israeli apartheid" (which, after all, is nothing more than an unfocussed epithet). As another example, you write particularly with regard to human rights abuses and war crimes by the U.S. and Israel., as if it were a fact that the U.S. and Israel are committing war crimes, and that allegations of "New anti-Semitism" are used to stifle debate about the U.S. On top of that, the writing was hard to decipher in places (particularly the opening sentence), and it was replete with spelling errors. I note that you have made a similarly biased and factually incorrect re-write of the lede of Palestinian refugee. It would be a good idea to get consensus for this kind of radical change on the Talk: pages of these highly controversial articles first. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

OK. First off, it wasnt/isnt all that bad, considering. It wasnt a "complete rewrite," though I was customarily thorough. My main niggles are that the criticism needs some exposition, and the intro needs some tweaking to make sense. Your points about what "proponents claim" is accurate, though I was simply making some neutral substitutions for sake of clarity: solidarity with mistreated human beings is "humanist," regardless of what particular proponents of certain licentious political theories may claim. "Israeli apartheid" is neutral and there is no reasonable disagreement --thats the definition of the term. Again, you are correct in that this isnt literally what they claim --which is the basis for the article. "Reliable sources" is disingenous because its a political theory, or claim, defined with a neologism. (Ive already destroyed any logical basis for this article as a "concept" several times in the talk.) So instead of saying such and such with a source number (which is useless), we should simply quote directly from the sources, as a political theory.

~~Here~~ Below are the two versions side by side. I will tweak the one on the right a bit further per your suggestions.-Ste|vertigo 23:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Stevertigo, your claim that "Israeli apartheid" is neutral and there is no reasonable disagreement --thats the definition of the term. highlights the underlying flaw with your approach. "Israeli apartheid" is simply a pejorative political epithet, and there is no reasonable disagreement - that's what the phrase is. The article itself contains no reliable sources which actually use and define the term. Rather than "tweaking" the one on the right, why don't you propose changes here instead. As noted, this is a highly controversial topic, and a great deal of negotiation and mediation has gone into producing this consensus version, and, given your obvious and strongly non-neutral opinions on the subject, it's unlikely your changes would conform with policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, that my concept of NPOV is somehow invalidated by my use of accurate terminology represents a flaw in your concept of NPOV, not mine. It remains a flaw regardless of how much support there is for it. Again, reliable sources is a selective concept, which is enforced only by superiour numbers and not by more elevated concepts such as precision, accuracy, and neutrality -- just to take some examples. Again, Im not trying to disrespect anybody's favourite pet concept, nor am I trying to deface a new symbol for ethnic solidarity. Ill discuss the particular problematic sentences in question below. -Ste|vertigo 23:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Stevertigo, the current intro was decided after mediation. Your suggestions won't fly because they're highly POV and some of them are hard to understand (e.g. a Jewish or Israeli "aspect"). The term "Israeli apartheid" is very far from being "neutral," and so on. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I can take the Israeli apartheid comment out, but I disagree that its POV, or that my POV is the fundamental part of my edit. To say that "this is controversial" and "weve worked hard to find a compromise" is reasonable and thus valid, and Im willing to abide by that provided Im not unreasonably blacklisted from editing it. -Ste|vertigo 23:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

"Israeli Apartheid" is not neutral per se, as it is a view held by those who oppose the policies of the State of Israel towards the Palestians and towards Arab citizens of Israel. However, to name it "is simply a pejorative political epithet, and there is no reasonable disagreement - that's what the phrase is" is not only disingenious, but is in itself a pejorative political epithet. Term has wide acceptance in circles who disagree with Israeli polcies, and a simple Google search provides a wide array of WP:RS and WP:V sources to sustain this. I ask Jayjg to please refrain, in the interest of civility, from describing the term "Israeli Apartheid" as an epithet. It isn't.

Sources:

"Against Israeli Apartheid" by Desmond Tutu & Ian Urbina, The Nation [[9]]

"Battling against Israeli 'apartheid'" by Lucy Ash, BBC News, [10]]

"Oxford holds 'Apartheid Israel' week" by Jonny Paul, Jerusalem Post, [11]

And others, of course. My attempt here is not to write an article, nor to go in detail if in fact the "Israeli Apartheid" exists or not, but to demonstrate that the typification of this POV as "political epithet" is misguided, and not supported by even shallow research of the term and its usage.

Also, well argued academic papers, and other sources which nevertheless do not meet wikipedian policies, also demonstrate the wide use of the term as part of political argument, with specific points, and with thought out and sourced arguments in its support. You might disagree with the term, that is your right, but to try to impose upon wikipedia your views, instead of reaching an NPOV understanding of the issue, is not helpful in the least.

Lastly, I would be disingeneous to deny that some do use it as epithet. Neverthless some do use "New Anti-semitism" as epithet, and we still devote a page to it in wikipedia, and mention it in other articles. So that a term is used as epithet doesn't mean that this is its main usage, nor that it doesn't have a deeper, better argued meaning behind it, nor does it make it unworthy of an NPOV encyclopedic treatment. --Cerejota 05:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

That's an excellent point: "Apartheid" ~ epithet; "apartheid = epithet" == epithet.-Ste|vertigo 17:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's a terrible point, since it is simply an epithet. Let's look at the examples. In the first, which is the best available in the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article, the actual article itself doesn't use the phrase "Israeli apartheid"; rather, the title of the article is "Israeli apartheid"; article titles are typically written by (in this case un-named) editors, not by authors. The second qualifies the term 'apartheid' by putting it in inverted commas; clearly is it saying that this is not real apartheid. The third doesn't even use the term "Israeli apartheid", and in any event simply repeats what pro-Palestinian activists on Oxford (and many other campuses) use as an epithet. The fact that pro-Palestinian students activists claim that Israeli practices apartheid in no way legitimizes the claim as anything more than an epithet; in fact, the opposite. Almost every country is accused of "apartheid" these days; see Apartheid outside of South Africa for many examples. Nevertheless, it doesn't mean the term is used as anything more than an epithet - again, in fact, the opposite, and it is is a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:CIVIL to claim that describing an epithet as an epithet is un-civil. On the other hand, New anti-Semitism is dealt with at length in many respectable sources, and it's hardly an epithet, since no-one calls people a "New anti-Semite". The false conflation of the epithet "Israeli apartheid" with the concept of "New anti-Semitism" is a fundamentally flawed argument which does not square with the facts. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Stevertigo, we've been through this already. One "side" wanted to say it was a real phenomenon; the other wanted to say it was a term. The compromise via the mediator was "concept." Same with the rest of it: all carefully negotiated. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Stevertigo, I am planning on putting some time into editing this article after a business trip taking out all of next week. It can be difficult and frustrating dealing with SlimVirgin and Jayjg sometimes -- they can appear unreasonable to the inexperienced editor. Although, from their perspective they probably feel the same way in the other direction. The trick is to make use of formal dispute resolution mechanisms in Wikipedia when hitting brick walls. I would suggest holding off a bit so that I can take part. I have some major ideas on how to improve the article that may be fairly acceptable to all involved, but it would be best to introduce them when I have to deal to properly contribute. Feel free to email me. --Ben Houston 05:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

In reality, the "trick" is to ensure that your edits conform strictly with Wikipedia's three fundamental content policies, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:V, with the latter's corollary guideline WP:RS. Once people start doing that, content disputes tend to melt away. Unfortunately, people tend to get offended by the content itself, feeling they must fight it, and end up ignoring the content rules, and WP:NOT, rather than working within them. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, I understand how difficult it is to find consensus on an article--particularly with regard to difficult current situations and concepts. We are an encyclopedia which is never faster at reporting particular bits of information than news media is, but we are always faster at reporting things as a whole picture. (That is why of course people favor inclusion and are repulsed by deletion/exclusion --because people can always read from among claims, and make a choice between them.

The real problem with this article is that it is ultimately talking about a fear of persecution --not persecution itself, but the fear thereof. Sympathy or insympathy to that fear is simply POV, but given the context of past persecutions its a natural fact of any related discussion. (BTW do we have an article on the "fear of anti-Semitism"?) Referring to these piecemeal points as a "concept" is one way to deal with and represent this meme as a topic, rather than simply make it an NPOV article about the fearful or alarmist claims of certain authors. As Ive said before, its not bad, though I of course would like the criticism to be featured and explained more in the lede. The criticism in fact does the concept more justice than the claims itself do, because it tends to make the intelligent distinction between the concepts of nationhood and statehood. Proponents try to mix these together and this only invites more.. criticism. -Ste|vertigo 17:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

No, the real problem with this article is that opponents of the concept keep trying to make up arguments against its validity, and using the Talk: page for that purpose as well, rather than simply quoting what reliable sources have to say on the matter. This leads them to start inserting all sorts of unsourced personal opinion into the article, or attempting to delete the article, or using the Talk: page as a soapbox. Unfortunately, none of this is in line with policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

POV Title

I notice the wikipedia page regarding the "Israeli apartheid" is titled "Allegations of Israeli Apartheid" whereas this page is not titled "Allegations of New Anti-Semitism". This would seem to me as a clear violation of NPOV.

Why is a term of wide use among those who criticize Israeli policies is "Alleged" whereas a term used as an argument to discredit its critics is used in a non-qualified way? --Cerejota 05:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. However, to put it bluntly, some certain editors here have a huge amount of clout and can get away with pushing their pro-"anti-Semitism accusing" POV. See for example also the Anti-globalization and Anti-Semitism article, which only got created in the first place because a sheriff badge in a demonstration was mistaken for a Star of David despite the word "sheriff" being written on it. After this fact was finally accepted (begrudgingly by some), the article however still exists. I'm taking an educated guess here and conjecture that if some person did were to move this page to "Allegations of new Anti-Semitism" or something similar, he/she would probably get burned with the accusation of "disrupting Wikipedia to make a point", after which, at worst, the Official Kangaroo Court may possibly come in full session or, at best, it would "merely" continue to haunt the editor in question in perpetuity.
The nice thing about policies is that there are so many of them to choose from. -- Dissident (Talk) 13:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I would avoid personal attacks since it serves to reduce one's ability to influence the situation -- it is a downward spiral that one must avoid. I think that patience and appropriate use of Wikipedia dispute resolution processes can achieve a lot more than one thicks. The trick is to not take anyone's word or opinion too seriously even when others are appearing to act "authoratively". --Ben Houston 14:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

It's actually worse than "Israeli apartheid", because every time one mentions "new anti-Semitism", either in the title of the article or in its contents, at best, it is not clear whether one talks about something that is new and anti-Semitic (itself a historical misnomer) or about the infamous concept of which it is the neologism. while at worst, the two are implicitly assumed to be equivalent. Of course, that was the whole reason why the name was chosen in the first place: for propaganda purposes. One solution would be to split the article up (e.g. by making "new anti-Semitism" a disambiguation page to "contemporary anti-Semitism" and "new anti-Semitism (term)" or something like that). Until then, at the very least a NPOV notice should be put here, for which I believe there is sufficient support. -- Dissident (Talk) 18:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it has a confusing name. Slow and steady push for change through the appropriate channels is the best way, otherwise you risk allowins others to protray you as disruptive and thus delegitimize you. It works both ways though, one just has to learn how the system works. I think another decent title is one like "Theory of New Anti-Semitism" -- Jayjg made a similar suggestion recently here [12]. I think, as a responded to Jayjg's comment, that the prefix "Theory of" is most useful in the context as a differentiator when there exists the possibility of confusion to the read. I think that the trick to making effective change is to ensure that one clearly acknowledges the incidences that the theory tries to link together into a coherent theory, and just focus on dealing with the degree to which the theory fits and the flaws and potential for misuse that critics point to -- this prevents the conflict from being about whether anti-Semitic events are happening but just about the interpretation and linking of them. I would even have a section that describes the evidence that is separate NPOV section from the explanation of the theory -- this makes criticism of the theory by Wikipedia editors less likely to be precieved as hostile attempts to diminish real and percieved anti-Semitism. These are just ideas, but can you see where I am coming from here? --Ben Houston 19:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be better to move this to leftist anti-Semitism (whose existence like "Israeli apartheid" can be debatted without doublespeak), after which it can be merged with Anti-globalization and Anti-Semitism, whose title is a violation of policy anyway. -- Dissident (Talk) 19:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this article is about New anti-Semitism, and it really needs to stay at the name which reliable sources use to describe it; "New anti-Semitism". Jayjg ^(talk) 02:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

"Leftist anti-Semitism" would simply be wrong. No one, to my knowledge, who supports the theory of New Anti-Semitism has said either that the viewpoint itself is inherently leftist nor that all of its adherents are leftists. Insofar as the phenomenon they are describing includes anti-Semitism expressed as anti-Zionism, clearly that occurs at times in the Arab world, expressed by people who have little or nothing in common with any "left".

I, for one, would not be opposed to a title that indicated more clearly that this is a "theory" or "allegation". I think it has about exactly as much basis as claims of "Israeli apartheid" (which is to say, quite a bit, but not to the point of being beyond extensive criticism and qualification). - Jmabel | Talk 18:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Intro

CJ, what were your thoughts on how to restyle the intro? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It should more accurately reflect the current state of the article. As it stands, the introductory definition doesn't match the definition we've included later on. CJCurrie 06:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I've tweaked it slightly here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The Kofi Annan Quote

Under the subheading "UN" of "Reactions and Responses", the following quote appears: "UN Secretary General Kofi Annan himself has said that it 'sometimes seems as if the United Nations serves all the world's peoples but one: the Jews.'" The Wikipedia editor has proved us with a reference, viz. "Actually the world is wrong," National Post, April 11, 2002. However, I have been unable to locate this article. I would therefore like to see this quote verified. Thanks! PJ 19:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

When you say you're unable to locate it, what happened when you tried? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I made various searches on Google, trying to find the article. Unfortunately, I was not able to find any references to that article, except in this Wikipedia article on New Antisemitism. So please, if anybody has a hyperlink to the article in National Post or any other info that would verify this statement by Annan, I would be grateful if you would share it. Thanks! PJ 12:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The National Post doesn't make its material available online, except in archives to subscribers. There are websites you can go to to order a copy, but you'd have to pay, although it's very cheap. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's another article from 2002 with the same quote. [13] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I do appreciate you taking the time to find me that quote, SlimVirgin. However, I happened to do another search and found what appears to be a transcript of Annan's speech in question. According to this transcript, Annan said the following: "I know that to some of you in this audience, and in the Jewish community at large, it has sometimes seemed as if the United Nations serves all the world's peoples but one: the Jews." Now, if this transcript is accurate, it is not Annan's personal opinon that UN fails to serve the Jews, but an acknowledgment that some people believe it to be so. (See Science Blog - SG/SM/7260 - http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/archives/L/1999/B/un991981.html). PJ 23:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The source is highly problematic is not reliable under WP:RS. Pecher ^Talk 13:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Fine. Here is the same transcript, taken from the UNs official website(http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/1999/19991215.sgsm7260.doc.html). PJ 13:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Fine, agreed. Pecher ^Talk 14:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It is hence my opinion that the section on Annan needs to be revised, in order not to be misleading. PJ 15:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I have now removed the sentence stating Annan as saying that the UN does not serve the Jews. PJ 19:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I really don't see why you would remove it, I am reinserting it for now.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I have given you my reason above for removing the disputed sentence, and here it is again: The sentence gives the impression that Annan believes that the UN fails to act appropriately concerning the Jews. But if you actually read the transcript, you realize that this is not what he says. Here is the quote together with its context: "I know that to some of you in this audience, and in the Jewish community at large, it has sometimes seemed as if the United Nations serves all the world's peoples but one: the Jews. The exclusion of Israel from the system of regional groupings; the intense focus given to some of Israel's actions, while other situations sometimes fail to elicit the similar outrage; these and other circumstances have given a regrettable impression of bias and one-sidedness." You, on the other hand, have not given your reason for reinserting the disputed sentence. Thus, please explain to me why you think the current phrasing of the quotation is justified; otherwise your edit is completely inappropriate. In case of no reply, I will revert your change. PJ 06:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually your removal of the passage was completly inappropriate. It is your opinion that the sentence is misleading, I happen to think otherwise, but we can not just remove a source because you happen to believe it actually says something differently, that constitutes original research. Anyways I have no idea what has led you to believe that he saying anything differently than what the original passage implies, if anything giving additional context to the quote just gives more creedance to the fact that he was saying the UN has been unfair to Jews. Please do not remove it again until you can actually find a source that supports your claim.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I did not remove the sentence without consulting first. I made my case, I stated my intention, and only after I had given people time to comment did I remove the disputed sentence. Now, regarding the issue at hand, please read what Annan is actually saying. He says that it "to some of you in this audience...it sometimes seems as if the United Nations serves all the world's peoples but one". Annan is not saying that it de facto is like this, or that he believes it, only that it to some people seems as if it were the case. He is further saying that it has given an "impression of bias..." Here again, an impression does not need to correspond to anything in real; an impression simply means that it seems that way. Hence, you cannot draw the conclusion that Annan believes that the UN has been unfair to the Jews. That would not only be bad reasoning but would also presuppose that those words was not intended to have any meaning. This would further be to disregards the fact that Annan is known for his subtle and diplomatic way of speaking. Either way, we cannot include ambiguous sentences based on a particular interpretation of it; that would constitute original research. Remember, you have the burden of proof here, since you are advocating that the sentence be included. You are the one claiming that your interpretation should take precedence over mine, without backing it up with any substantial arguments. PJ 13:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually the you are the one that is arguing based on your own interpretation of it, you have basically decided that he isn't saying what he is actually saying based on a few inconsequential remarks that you somewhat have oddly announced indicate that he doesn't believe what he is saying. The only thing I am saying is that we should include the quote into the article since it is obviously both relevant and properly referenced. Your claim that I have to "prove" something before I can insert a sourced statement into an appropriate article is strange and has no basis in policy.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 16:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

As long as you understand the meaning of "seems as if [to some]" and "gives the impression", there is nothing odd about what I say. Perhaps you do not grasp the meaning of these words, because you have to do violence on our language and logic in order to interpret the disputed sentence in your favour. Furthermore, simply having a reference to a newspaper does not automatically qualify what-have-you to be part of this article. You need to show that the material is relevant and that the source is trustworthy; I am sure you are aware of this, if you give it some thought. Most importantly, you have to make sure that the source is not misrepresenting that material which it intends to present. I have provided you with the transcript of Annan's speech, taken from the UN website. And by comparing the transcript and the quotation in the newspaper article, it is clear that the newspaper article has misrepresented Annan's statement by only including a particular clause and leaving out the rest. Your claim that Annan was inconsequential but that we nevertheless can dicern his true intention behind the statement, is based on a vulgar assumption. The fact is, the complete statement (as it is found in the transcript) is at best very ambiguous and cannot be used to make the point some wish to make. (If you disagree with this, let us include the the entire paragraph, or at least the entire sentence. That would be fine with me.) Thus, unless you address the real issues over the disputed sentence, I find it unfruitful to continue discussing this matter with you. Instead, I would call upon others to voice their opinion regarding this issue, and if necessary request an arbiter. PJ 18:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The quote should stay unless either of you can find a source that specifially shows a similar interpretation to the one you have written. By the way, I really do not see your condescending remarks helping anything, least of which your argument.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 17:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Moshe: As things currently stand, the Kofi Annan quote is really a selective half-quote, and its inclusion is intellectually dishonest. If you're willing to reword the section to provide for the full context, it may become acceptable. CJCurrie 00:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

If this discussion is to move forward, we need input from other people. Please post your thoughts on the matter. PJ 19:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the quote should stay in, because it's clearly relevant to the topic, but it does need to be accurately quoted by us. I found a source other than the National Post with the same quote. [14] I'm therefore wondering whether this news organization and the NP were quoting a UN press release; I can't imagine the NP simply making up quotes. The scienceblog source that PJ found giving what appears to be the whole speech [15] is a less reliable source than the National Post. I therefore think someone should try to find the original NP quote (I'm willing to do that), and find something from the United Nations website, and not scienceblog. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Slim: Did you see this link? CJCurrie 21:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's the National Post quote (or, more accurately, half-quote):

But when it comes to Israel, "the whole world" persists in a gross hypocrisy. Outright hatred too, as last year's UN kaffiyeh kaffeeklatsch in Durban, South Africa amply demonstrated. (At that "conference against racism," Arab contingents honoured the spirit of tolerance by handing out commentaries approving Hitler's ambition to exterminate the Jewish bacillus.) Mr. Annan summed up the UN spirit nicely in 1999: "It sometimes seems as if the United Nations serves all the world's peoples but one: the Jews."

The excerpted text is taken from an editorial, not from a news report. I suspect the Post was overextending itself in making its case for Israel: they didn't make up the Annan quote, but neither did they present it accurately. As has already been noted, Annan actually said I know that to some of you in this audience, and in the Jewish community at large, it has sometimes seemed as if the United Nations serves all the world's peoples but one: the Jews.

I will reiterate that I do not object to Annan's quote being referenced, provided that we do not distort either his words or his meaning. CJCurrie 21:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, CJ. That seems pretty clear to me. I agree that we should include it, so long as we quote it accurately. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I put it back in, but based on the press release, not the NP. [16] Hope that's okay with everyone. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It is very appropriate to keep it in. Ziv Goldstein 07:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The current wording is definately an approvment; no doubt about it. However, there is still a minor point that worries me. As I understand the paragraph in the Wikipedia entry in which the sentence in question appears, the purpose is to lend credibility to the idea that new antisemitism does exists. Thus, given the context, Annan's statement may appear to be a "de jure" acknowledgement (i.e. saying something about the legitimacy of such belief) not simply a "de facto" acknowledgement. But as I see it, Annan is not saying anything about the legitimacy of the belief that the UN is being biased against the Jews. As a consequence, the utility of including the sentence at all seems dubious to me. I don't mind the inclusion of Annan's statement as such, but I do worry about the connotations being bestowed upon it given the context. Again, this is a minor issue, although I would like to read other's take on it. PJ 14:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's important that the Secretary-General has acknowledged the concerns of the Jewish community that the UN doesn't serve the interests of Jews, so it seems appropriate in the section about the UN. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's be clear where the problem lies: the quotation itself is in diplomatic passive voice, which assigns no responsibility and originates no belief. When Annan says, "I know that to some of you in this audience, and in the Jewish community at large, it has sometimes seemed...", he is not stating "I believe that Jews are not served by the UN"; rather, he's saying, in effect, "Some people believe..." This would be classified as weasel wording if an editor wrote it on Wikipedia. However, the way it's presented in the section, is merely to emphasis that Annan acknowledges that such a belief exists in others-- but whether he, himself holds such an opinion is dubious. -Leflyman^Talk 09:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Leflyman. And "acknowledge" is not NPOV language as it implies a Wikipedia endorsement of the view that the UN has been at fault. But my worry is a broader one - that there is nothing to connect this statement to New Anti-semitism. I also have concerns with sources and the way they are treated in the whole UN section.Itsmejudith 10:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Our article says he acknowledged their concerns, which he did. But in fact he went a bit further than that, if you read the speech:

The exclusion of Israel from the system of regional groupings; the intense focus given to some of Israel's actions, while other situations sometimes fail to elicit the similar outrage; these and other circumstances have given a regrettable impression of bias and one-sidedness.

As you know, the General Assembly some years ago rescinded its resolution equating Zionism with racism. Even so, deep and painful scars remain — for the United Nations, I should stress, as much as for you ...

He's acknowledging that the view of the UN as anti-Semitic is not without foundation. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I concede the overall point to SlimVirgin: Annan does seem to be acknowledging the view of the UN as anti-Semitic is not without foundation. That being said, I am still a bit doubtful whether Annan says anything about the legitimacy of that foundation. He seems to be saying that given a regrettable impression of bias he has some understanding as to why some people think that the UN are being biased against the Jews some of the time. Perhaps including the subsequent sentence (i.e. "The exclusion of Israel...impression of bias and one-sidedness") would end some speculations. I am really uncertain myself whether this would be an approvement or not, so please, let me know what y'all think? PJ 07:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Neumann

Is Michael Neumann specifically talking about new anti-Semitism, or arguing there is no such thing? He seems to me to be talking about anti-Semitism in general:

"Michael Neumann, a professor of philosophy at Trent University, is critical of how the term anti-Semitism is used, and says that too often criticism of Israel is wrongly labeled anti-Semitic. (Neumann, Michael. There Are Much Larger Threats: Criticism of Israel is not Anti-Semitism, CounterPunch, December 30, 2003. Accessed 9 January 2006) He argues that anti-Semitism should be defined as hatred of Jews for what they are and not for what they do. Thus criticizing Jews for simply being Jews or applying anti-Semitic stereotypes to them would be anti-Semitic but not, say, criticizing the Jewish community for failing to hold Israel accountable for its actions. He argues that anti-Semitism also applies to the attitudes that propaganda tries to instill. Though not always explicitly racist, it involves racist motives and the intention to do real damage. Reasonably well-founded opposition to Israeli policies, even if that opposition hurts all Jews, does not fit this description. Neither does simple, harmless dislike of things Jewish. (Neumann, Michael. "What is Antisemitism?", Counterpunch)"

Finkelstein

Stevertigo, were you trying to weaken the argument against New anti-Semitism by including that Finkelstein material you copied from the Phylis Chesler article? I only ask because little of the material you copied in there actually deals with the concept of New anti-Semitism, but instead is nit-picking about minor writing and copyediting errors that frankly makes Finkelstein (and his arguments) look worse. Can you explain the relevance of the number of Jews from Arab lands who immigrated to Israel, or Aung San Suu Kyi's religion, to the validity of the concept of New anti-Semitism? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The expansion of the section on Finkelstein gives undue weight to the criticism of one book by one man. Two paragraphs of an encyclopedia article are too much air time for this minor controversy. Pecher ^Talk 20:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. Norm directly attacks the scholarship of a popular author on this subject. This article cites her, as it should, but for some reason does not directly quote her work. Norm does, and has a thing or two to say about it. But theres no reason to remove Norm's comment, and the above criticism seems rather lame considering how much Klug and others are quoted above. Their work may be more dedicated to the particular subject, but I prefer to draw a distinction between article and book. Different things. Removing the material seems only to serve the purpose of removing all mention of Chesler, except of course in citation 1 from the lede. Odd. -Ste|vertigo 21:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)\

I'm not aware that the article uses any of Chesler's material. It was deliberately avoided, because we're trying to use as high quality sources as we can find, and preferably scholarly. Chesler's work is a polemic, rather than a scholarly study. There's therefore no reason to devote a lot of space to criticizing her, and some of the material you added, Stevertigo, had nothing to do with NAS. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Well the article isnt really about authoritative research, its about a public dialectic regarding a claimed resurgent phenomenon. There is no little irony in the fact that a subject which deals basically with quotations about the expressions of racist bigots, is then selectively removing 'low quality sources' from the text in order to make its thesis more usable. On the surface this seems a bit specious, but given the fact that Chesler's book was a popular work, talked directly about the subject at hand, and no doubt had some catalytic effect in shaping the debate, it requires some mentioning here. Again, the article isnt in bad shape at all, and people should be proud of the work theyve done on it. I will of course constrain my comments to specific points where I think the article can be further improved. -Ste|vertigo 21:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you're quite wrong and that is somewhat insulting, as a lot of work went into finding good sources. There are over 120 footnotes, so perhaps you should read some of them. I don't regard Chesler as an authoritative source on this at all, and I don't believe others do either. Her book may be of some interest, so I'm not running it down entirely, but as I said, it is a polemic, not a scholarly study or scholarly opinion. Of course editors should be "selectively removing low quality sources": are you suggesting we should deliberately use poor sources? And who are the "racist bigots"? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Ive corrected the text above - I left out an 'about.' Poor sources: Im suggesting that you consider the fact that "reliable sources" often arent. The Pentagon for example has rarely been a reliable source of information - it lies all the time, and has been show to - and yet its widely treated like an authority, without any damage to its official reputation as a source. Of course there are no "reliable sources" for a topic which deals largely with speculum in areas of sociology, and there are only better arguments and lesser arguments. Being selective about whats out there - ie. excluding a popular book on the topic - is a bit academically dishonest. It may not have been state of the art, but it represents one level at which the argument was promoted in the history of discourse regarding this concept.-Ste|vertigo 00:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

If Chesler's work is discounted as polemic, then works by Chomsky and Finkelstein must be discounted even more heavily for the same reason. Pecher ^Talk 22:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Sharansky's 3D Test

Why is Nathan Sharansky's opinion on a par with the US, EU and UN; and not along with Chomsky, Finkelstein and Neumann? PJ 13:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree about Sharansky not being great in that section, but we can't put him in with critics, so I left him under Reactions and responses. We could move him to the critics section, and rename that "other commentators." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I approve of the idea of including Sharansky with the rest under the common heading "other commentators". PJ 07:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent edit marked minor

Just a note to say that my most recent edit to the Norman Finkelstein section was marked minor by accident (I have no idea how that happened). It was not minor, and I did not intentionally click the "this is a minor edit" box, so I'm a little stumped. —Viriditas | Talk 03:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Demo poster image

What is the source for the image of the demo poster at the top of the article? I see that fair use is claimed, but there is no reason given for why the image should be of no commercial value, and I can't see what the source is, or who the copyright holder is? Thanks. Itsmejudith 07:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It's on the image page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I can see that now, but there is no information about the image's copyright status and no detailed argument for fair use. Similarly for the photo claimed to have been taken at Leeds University. Itsmejudith 13:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The information about the placard is on the image page; the person who maintains the website owns the copyright. What kind of detailed argument do you want? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I e-mailed the copyright holder and he's released it under a creative commons attribution licence. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm just concerned that Wikipedia asks for full details of the copyright to be supplied. I would have thought that should include at least the name of the person who owns the copyright and the year of the copyright. I'm not familiar with US copyright law, perhaps you are, but whether the photographer is a professional or amateur might be relevant to the question of whether it has a market value. I've asked User:Netscott to comment because he has been pursuing another potential image copyvio recently. Itsmejudith 17:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Didn't you read my reply? He has released it under a free licence. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry that I didn't take your reply into account. There was an edit conflict. Thanks for establishing this. It may be sufficient but perhaps evidence of this licence will be required. Itsmejudith 18:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It may be sufficient? Tell me, have you asked for these levels of "evidence" for any of the hundreds of thousands of other pictures on Wikipedia? Is the good faith you ask for below only appropriate for others, but you are exempt from it? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

"Claimed" to have been taken? Are you doubting it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm being careful because I don't know how reliable the source is. There is nothing in the photo to indicate where it was taken. I was concerned about a similar potential copyvio question, but it now occurs to me that there is also the possibility that the university would consider this to be libellous. Itsmejudith 17:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL!! You'll try everything won't you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the creator of the poll will attempt to sue, based on the assertion that his chalkboard writing could be analyzed by a graphologist and attributed to him. :-D Jayjg ^(talk) 18:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Both copyvio and the potential of libel are serious matters, so please be civil and assume good faith, thanks. Itsmejudith 18:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Real copyvio and libel are serious issues; however, bogus claims of them, in an attempt to remove from an article pictures that make one uncomfortable, are met with appropriate levity. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Itsmejudith does have a point here. Details concerning the image should be included on the image page. I tried to find the page where the image was located on the Zombietime site to no avail. It's standard that sites do include release information on their sites. I would strongly recommend that SlimVirgin include the text from the e-mail concerning the CreativeCommons licensing details on the image page as well. Essentially it should be straightforward for fellow editors to establish the license status of a given image. I will look into this further later on. (→Netscott) 20:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I found the image in just one click here. Seek excuses and ye shall find them. Pecher ^Talk 20:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, the source was on the image page until a couple of hours ago, and Itsmejudith saw it. I simply forgot to copy it back in when I changed the tag. It's back now. The e-mail goes to permissions@wikimedia.org. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, that link on the image certainly helps, it's good you've now added it. I've not dealt directly with the permission@wikimedia.org folks but I imagine if Itsmejudith or another editor wanted to confirm a given image's status as having permission (established via that address) it would be a simple matter of contacting them (permission@wikimedia.org) no? (→Netscott) 20:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea how it works. When I've e-mailed that address, I've received an automated response asking me to send the permission. I don't know whether real people ever respond. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, what on earth makes you say "bogus" about my concerns? And why do you say I tried to remove pictures from the article? I have not even suggested that they should be removed. Itsmejudith 22:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

What you were implying was plainly obvious for anyone to see. It was clear that you were attempting to use very odd criteria for the inclusion of the picture.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

In the context of your edits here and elsewhere, the purpose of your posts is clearly to try to have them removed because you don't like them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, have I done anything - here or elswhere - that goes against the letter or the spirit of Wikipedia? If I have, please let me know and I will try to keep to the rules better. Thank you. Itsmejudith 22:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Itsmejudith, please see the comments above. You saw pictures you didn't like, so you tried to find reasons which would require them to be deleted from Wikipedia entirely. The reasons you gave were increasingly farfetched. You never complained about this image when you edited the Edward Said article, or this image when you edited Jean Claude Van Damme , or this image when you edited Solar power. Claiming that you didn't try to remove pictures from this article, or even "suggest" they be removed, is mere sophistry. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting. This image has no source information at all. This one does, but when you go to the link on the image page, it doesn't give any indication as to the copyright status, which is what Itsmejudith was complaining about here. Same with this image of Said and this link to its source — no information at all. Itsmejudith, you edited all those pages. Why didn't you question those images too? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Folks let's try to embrace the assumption of good faith here. From what I see, the topic of this article is a bit more in the forefront as is for example the Mel Gibson article and it's normal for editors to be taking particular interest in ensuring that such forefront articles are well in accord with Wikipedia policies. Itsmejudith was aware of my efforts towards similar ends regarding the images on that article which is why she asked if I'd take a look here. Not having witnessed the unfolding of events surrounding images and this article I can't fully say what Itsmejudith's motives are but to be honest I don't see how such motives matter. The reality is that all Wikipedia articles should be in adherence to policies and while this article may have been seemingly targetted relative to other articles that weren't the fact that this article needed work as to image attribution was never lessened. Can anyone in this discussion disagree that this article and it's images have not been improved relative to policy due to Itsmejudith's efforts? Thanks. (→Netscott) 05:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your concilatory attitude but the bottom line is that assuming good faith does not mean be blind and be stupid. Good faith might have been a realistic approach after the first couple of comments she made, but as she continued to find increasingly odd reasons why the picture was somehow illegal I think that WP:AGF became null and void. If we used the completely unrealisitc criteria for inclusion that Judith suggested I doubt there would be any pictures on wikipedia at all. The fact is that very few of the pictures she must have encountered on wikipedia should be "legal" according to her definition and yet managed to pick one that perhaps best exemplified a point-of-view that ran counter to one that she apparently possessed, her motives were just all too obvious.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, not sure where I took a concilatory attitude but just to be clear, Itmejudith was correct in her pursuit of source and copyright details on this image. From looking at a diff of the image details, prior to Itsmejudith's questioning of the image there was little detail and a very obviously false "no commercial value" fair use reasoning for the image. Wikipedia fair use guidelines and policy are clear about what logic editors need to include and specify for such images they upload and the image details previously provided fell afoul of those guidelines and policies. Thanks to Itsmejudith's questioning and SlimVirgin's subsequent establishment of a CreativeCommons license for this image it can now be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons so that other language Wikipedia's can have acccess to it for inclusion in their articles. Thanks. (→Netscott) 08:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I didn't really think you were being that concilatory, its just nice to say something polite when you are about to disagree with them :)- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Questioning copyright status is fine, trying to remove the image at all costs and under any pretext is not. I could question Jayjg and SlimVirgin's conclusion about Itsmejudith's motives, had it not been her pattern of arguing for quite awhile. Pecher ^Talk 12:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, with respect, you've arrived at this situation with no knowledge of the background. I was in the process of trying to obtain a creative commons licence for that image anyway. The only thing that had slowed me down was there was no obvious e-mail address on the website for the copyright holder. My finding his e-mail was unconnected to Itsmejudith. She was determined to cause a problem on this page, legitimately or otherwise — including insisting it might be libellous to claim that anti-Semitic graffiti has been seen in the University of Leeds, a claim sourced to the Community Security Trust of the Board of Deputies of British Jews — and has made some questionable edits, including trying to add to the description of a British lawyer that he went to live in Israel [17] i.e. was probably a Jew.

The issue is not worth discussing any further. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to say for the record that I believe that I have acted in good faith throughout this issue. I will be away now until early September but when I return I intend to reply fully to correct the misapprehensions that have been stated here. Itsmejudith 18:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

There is another problem with this image. It's a derivative work. There is also a copyright owned by the person who made the poster. // Liftarn

Photos of political posters displayed at rallies are generally considered fair use. In a case like this, it's almost impossible to find the original copyright owner. I'm pretty sure that there has never been a case of a court deciding it was an infringement of copyright to use an image like this. - Jmabel | Talk 06:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section

CJC, I don't think I agree with splitting of the criticism in the left-wing section. The whole point of writing it that way was to produce a more nuanced article, where we didn't only have chunks of pro and anti. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Three responses:

(i) For all intents and purposes, the three paragraphs in question were *already* a critical subsection within "the Left and anti-Zionism". Formally identifying them as such doesn't strike me as particularly problematic.

(ii) From the standpoint of presentation, the previous version did not strike me as entirely fair to Tariq Ali. Having a picture of him beneath an anti-Semitic image, in a section called "the Left and anti-Zionism", may have led inattentive readers to assume that he was *part of* the New anti-Semitism. (I'm not suggesting that this was deliberate.) This has bothered me for a while; creating a subsection solves the problem.

(iii) More generally, I think most would agree that the association with anti-Zionism is the most controversial aspect of NAS. It doesn't strike me as inappropriate to have a separate section for such criticism.

That being said, I'm not permanently wedded to the concept of a "Criticism" subsection. If you can think of a different way of addressing these concerns, I'm willing to listen. Note that (ii) was the primary impetus for the change. CJCurrie 05:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take another look. The placement of the image there wasn't deliberate in any negative sense: I chose an image of him so that there was an image of a left-winger who had strongly criticized the concept. It was me trying to be NPOV. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV: Bans on Kosher meat

This section is heavily POV, understandably given the subject material of the article; yet, being quite affiliated with many animal welfare / rescue groups around the world, I can definitely say the prime people to lobby for this kind of social change in Europe are the same as in other countries, people who believe that if we are to mass slaughter millions of animals each year, that it should be done instantly and immediately with causational brain death (ie: bolt gun).

Many of my jewish and islamic associates have raised hearsay issues about 'contamination' due to the use of bolt guns, however this has been scientifically negated and thus having no physical scientific difference in the end product apart from the injury and agony caused to the animal, many countries see it as improper to continue 2,000 years old slaughtering techniques that are, by modern standards, inhumane.

Perhaps someone could attempt to mention this, preferably in the first paragraph of the sub-section, as the reasoning given. I'd say the ban being a dig at judaeism and derivitive cultures thereof is a bit on the edge of conspiracy theory. 211.30.80.121 01:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

what the?

This should be and could be contained to a few paragraphs in the anti-semetism article, I dont see its purpose

Change of title

I don't think the change of title (from "New anti-Semitism" to "Debate on new anti-Semitism") is necessary or appropriate (and I say this as someone pretty skeptical of the "New anti-Semitism" thesis). We have articles with titles like Republican In Name Only and Limousine liberal. These should illustrate that even a purely POV term can be a title. - Jmabel | Talk 07:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The test of whether a title like this is appropriate is the extent to which it's used by academics and other serious commentators, and this phrase is unquestionably used, and is not at all unusual (unlike, say, Islamofascism, which is used largely or entirely as an insult, and which should therefore be qualified in some way). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, which phrase is "unquestionably used", "New anti-Semitism" or "Debate on new anti-Semitism"? I presume you mean the former. - Jmabel | Talk 15:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the former. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposals to enhance balance

I want to see the following points mentioned:

- The relevance to the concept of New Anti Semitism of the anti-Semitic, far-right Christian Zionist lobby in the United States which supports Israel. Cf. John Ashcroft's "Fuck the Jews" comment.

- That left wingers who make anti-Zionist polemics are motivated by anti-Semitism is a subjective unverifiable opinion in the vast majority of cases. This needs to be crystal clear.

- That French Stalinists and Right Greens (common in France) who enter the Red-Green-Brown-Alliance are not representative of normal "Left" opinion and their "left" status is disputed by many left wingers.

- That orthodox Jews frequently unite with Islamic groups in protest against the apartheid policies of Israel and blame them for the rise in Anti-Semitism.

- The mention of the concept "Jewish lobby" is the conspiracism section and the suggestion that this is anti-Semitic should be balanced by the concept which is actually current on the Left, which is the Zionist Israeli Lobby. See "The Israel Lobby" (John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt)

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html

There are too many statements of opinion masquerading as fact - for example the statement that posters of Palestinian child meat represent "the resurrection of the blood libel". This is not a fact.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarma 2002 (talk • contribs)

You seem to be the one mistaking your own opinion for fact. You've elsewhere posted, as an anon, that we unfairly paint Lyndon LaRouche as a fringe-dweller, and that there's no evidence that he has made anti-Semitic remarks!

All we do is report what other reliable sources say. On that note, you won't find a good source that says Orthodox Jews "frequently" unite with Islamic groups. A very tiny fringe minority does from time to time, and they're not even remotely representative. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that SlimVirgin, as she often does, brings up a good point here -- the difference between "representative" and "tiny fringe". I agree with here that we should not present tiny fringe elements as representative -- a guideline that should be followed on both sides of the new anti-Semitism debate. --Ben Houston 20:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

As indeed it is, thank you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Of your points, I think that #2, #5 and to a degree #6 are the most pertinent and useful. I appreciate you taking the time to make your suggestions -- these types of things make Wikipedia better. I can't talk much about point #3 -- it is something that I do not know that much about. I suggest that you, Tarma 2002, give it a go at remedying these to your liking. The other editors here will likely be able to give useful feedback from both sides of the issue. --Ben Houston 20:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, most of Tarma's points sound like original research. We quote reliable sources here, we don't make up our own arguments to counter material we disagree with, as Tarma seems to be suggesting. If he can find reliable soruces on New anti-Semitism that discuss these issues, that's great. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you are making the mistake of biting the new comers. All of those points can be properly researched and included -- it is not necessary to preemptively dismiss them and attack Tarma that have the effect of discourage contributions. I was working on the assumption that he/she was listing points to be properly addressed rather that listing the full sources. I wish I had time to contribute to WP at the moment. --Ben Houston 18:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou for the responses both pro and anti, and the encouragement. I don't want to get into edit wars before a consensus is reached on the talk page, so I'm just giving my tuppence worth. I don't think I'm proposing original research. I think that the article presently has a right wing tone because it basically fails to mention that most of the criticism of Israel is of it's military actions, or use of violent means of suppression. Regardless of whether or not that fundamentally questions or denies Israel's right to exist, the simple fact is that this is pacifism, not "leftism".

Conflating pacifism with racism is patently absurd, so what the neo-cons and right wing zionists do to foil their critics is highlight the anti-capitalist nature of pacifism and resurrect the discourse that dates from the protocols of the Elders of Zion that alledges that all anti-capitalists must be anti-semites. The outcome is an Orwellian perversion of language and distortion of reality where those who oppose militarism and fascism are blamed for being it's apologists and supporters.

Tarma 2002 17:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)tarma_2002

Kosher section

I'm moving this section here so we can discuss whether it should be in the article. The sources don't discuss it in terms of new anti-Semitism, and while there's no requirement that sources use that particular term, it should nevertheless be clear that that's the context. They might talk about a new wave of anti-Semitism, modern anti-Semitism, contemporary anti-Semitism, left-wing anti-Semitism, an alliance of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, and so on. It seems to me that it's not clear that the sources are discussing the bans on kosher meat within that context. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

In the past decade four European countries, Belgium, France Germany and Holland have banned the kosher slaughter of animals bringing the total number of European countries banning the practice to eight. The Swiss banned kosher slaughter in 1902 and saw an anti-Semitic backlash against a proposal to refused to lift it a century later^[1]. Both Holland and Switzerland have considered extending the ban in order to prohibit importing kosher products. The former chief rabbi of Norway, Michael Melchior, argues that anti-Semitism is a motive for the bans "I won't say this is the only motivation, but it's certainly no coincidence that one of the first things Nazi Germany forbade was kosher slaughter. I also know that during the original debate on this issue in Norway, where shechitah has been banned since 1930, one of the parliamentarians said straight out, 'If they don't like it, let them go live somewhere else.'"^[2]

Melchior, who was serving as Israeli deputy foreign minister at the time of the Dutch debate, also said "they simply don't want foreigners and they don't want Jews...The lie that ritual slaughter is cruel simply shows a hatred for Jewish life."^[3]

Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League says that the bans came about due to animal rights campaigners being "aided and abetted" by anti-Semitic politicians.

"Sometimes anti-Semites will use this as a vehicle to try to isolate the Jewish community by reaching out to those who are so preoccupied with [animal rights]...The key is whether or not there is a history in that country. ... What other issues of animal rights have they engaged in to prohibit cruelty? When they begin and end with kosher slaughter, that's when I become suspect."^[3]

Rabbi Menachem Genack, the kashrut administrator for the Orthodox Union said of the bans "It's ominous...This kind of legislation in Europe has to be understood in the context of European history. A person would have to be extremely naive not to think that this is linked to anti-Semitism."^[3]

"This is a trend that is very much worrying us," said Avi Beker, secretary general of the World Jewish Congress "We regard this as interference in Jewish religious practices."

In Switzerland, Christopher Blocker, a cabinet minister for the right-wing Swiss People's Party who was found guilty of anti-Semitism by a Zurich court in 1999, has supported calls to ban the import of kosher and halal meat.^[4]. The Swiss Animal Association called for a referendum on banning kosher imports.^[3]

^ Berlin, Howard, "[http://www.drberlin.com/op-ed/battles.htm "Jews, Muslims on same side of several battles", NewsJournal, March 8, 2004
^ World Net Daily, [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29841 "Europe's new face of anti-Semitism 5 countries now ban production of kosher meat as synagogues burn, boycott of Israel continues", December 3, 2002
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Dickter, Adam, Fear over European kosher bans, World Jewish Review, July 2002
^ Wistrich, Robert S., "European Anti-Semitism Reinvents Itself", American Jewish Committee, 2005, pg 10

Actually, I see now that phrases like "Europe's new face of anti-Semitism" are mentioned, so perhaps we just need to re-write it to emphasize that aspect. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I've followed the debate about ritual slaugher and the debate was about religious freedom vs the suffering of animals. If it should go into the article the reason behind the ban (preventing cruelty to animals) should be mentioned. A simmilar subject would be the regulation of MGM where a simmilar debate was wages (religious freedom vs preventing child abuse). // Liftarn

It's entirely possible that the pretext given for banning kosher slaughter was preventing cruelty to animals; regardless, this is an article about New anti-Semitism. Thus, it reports what various sources discussing New (or contemporary) anti-Semitism have said on the subject. If you have some examples of people saying "the bans on kosher meat slaughter were not an example of modern anti-Semitism because..." that's great. But you certainly can't state as fact (as you have done) that prevention of cruelty to animals was the reason for the bans, nor can you argue with the sources based on your own feelings or beliefs about the incident. It pains me to have to say this yet again, but please review WP:NOR, particularly the part that excludes stuff if "It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position." Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added the section back more or less as it was, as it did indeed accurately reflect the sources, and the sources do say that they see it as part of a new wave of European anti-Semitism. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It may be worthwhile to make a separate article about Kosher bans if there is not yet one. --Ben Houston 18:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

But naming that article would be difficult since one side sees it from a religious viewpoint and another from an animal protection viewpoint. So from a religious viewpoint it's a question on ban on kosher (and halal) slaugher while it from an animal protection viewpoint it doesn't matter if it's kosher or halal, but it's the method (sliting the throat) that matter. There is an article on captive bolt pistol so it wouldn't be impossible to write an article. There is one on Swedish Wikipedia (sv:Skäktning). I could translate it if I knew what it's called in English. // Liftarn

Liftarn, what is it about no original research that you find so difficult to adhere to? The section you added, and links you brought, did not refer to New anti-Semitism at all. The NOR policy specifically excludes material if It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position, which is exactly what you've done here. Moreover, it states that precise argument, or combination of material, must have been published by a reliable source in the context of the topic the article is about. Where has the material been published in the context of New anti-Semitism? I remind you that, as difficult as you may find it, you must edit within policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

What? It was well sourced and it was no OR whatsoever. The links talks about the ban on ritual slaughter. It is in the context of "European bans on shechitah" that the section was about. It is important to note that the ban is mainly motivated by animal wellfare concerns rather than anti-Semitism (old or new) like some religious crackpots thinks. // Liftarn 18:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Did you read the highlighted sections above? None of your sources discussed this ban in the context of anti-Semitism. That's what this article is about, and that's what the section alleges; that it's an example of new anti-Semitism. Your claim that the ban is "mainly motivated by animal wellfare concerns" is an argument meant to refute those "religious crackpots" who argue otherwise. You need to find sources that argue it is not an example of New anti-Semitism, you can't make that argument yourself. It's rather disappointing that you would both ignore the WP:NOR policy, even when it's highlighted for you, and pretend that the section was removed by accident, when it was clearly stated, both here and in edit summaries, [18] [19] that it was removed for the obvious reason that it was original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

One could call it "Animal rights and religious slaughter" or something to that extent -- thus it captures Jewish and Muslim slaughtering practices. I guess I am concerned that it is not being treated very appropriately within the context of this article -- it complicates things. --Ben Houston 16:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right it's not being treated appropriately in the context of this article; for some reason Liftarn feels he needs to create his own novel argument to refute another argument or position that he disagrees with. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess I am proposing that one attempts to deal with the facts of the Kosher bans and the context in a neutral place rather than forcing it to be dealt with in a article that pushes one specific explanation. It is no different that forcing the Kosher bans to be discussed primarily in an article about human rights -- that context also forces a specific angle. Having its own article, which can then be referenced by articles dealing with specific interpretations would be the best NPOV solution. --Ben Houston 16:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Even if one were able to create such an article, the topic would still have to be dealt with here, in the context of New anti-Semitism. For better or worse, a number of reliable sources have associated bans of kosher slaughter with modern anti-Semitism, and if one wishes to counter that argument, one must provide other reliable sources which argue against that interpretation. And, as I'm sure you know, but others continually fail to grasp, Wikipedia editors do not count as reliable sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Are there any reliabe sources that have associated bans of kosher slaughter with modern anti-Semitism or is that connection just a conspiracy theory from some weirdos? // Liftarn 18:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

We quote sources in the article. If you want to argue against it, you'll have to find sources who argue that it's not a consequence of anti-Semitism, but was done because ... I'm sure there are plenty out there. I'm not all that keen on this section myself, but it's sourced and it's relevant. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of sources. I picked one at random and it was a far right political blog. Hardly a reliable source. // Liftarn

Which one would that be? If you mentioned it back there somewhere I missed it. - Jmabel | Talk 06:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

In response to Jayjg... of course it would still be mentioned in this article but having its own would ensure it is treated appropriately with full context. Notice just now SlimVirgin removing parts that give it NPOV context because the additions don't specifically reference NAS -- it can not be fully treated here. This is why it needs its own article. Maybe call is "Kosher slaughter bans" or "European Kosher slaughter bans" or "Modern European Kosher slaughter bans" something similar -- thus no mention of NAS or animal rights in the title, it just a focus on recent bans in a particular geographic region. --Ben Houston 22:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I found a source where David Duke talks out against shechtia and in favour of PETA's campaign against it, should this be worked in to the article? [20]

Perhaps in the shechita article, but it seems a bit much like "undue weight". // Liftarn

There is not nearly enough context in this section. Nowhere is the view of the ban's proponents explained in the context of animal rights. Readers are left with the clear impression that shechita bans are the work of some anti-Semitic nutcase conspiracy. We have no reliably sourced evidence to suggest that PETA is in cahoots with anti-Semites - only the suggestions of pundits and rabbis. Either we remove everything, or include the reliably sourced evidence explaining another possible reason for the ban. FCYTravis 19:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

Is there a falseable evidence that this article maintains an NPOV? It looks like an article with and agenda, which contrasts with the very high quality of Wikipedia articles on anti-semitism and on the Holocaust, with which this one's linked to by similar referencing pages. 200.178.22.27 13:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I think it would be very hard to balance this article. It is mostly for the "fans" I suppose. pertn 13:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Rereading the intro here, I must conclude that this article needs balancing. For example, there is no mention of the fact that this "concept" almost exclusively is referred to by Right-Wing/Pro-Israel milieus (the sources used in this article should prove this point in itself, WorldNetDaily and such). With omissions like these, I believe that the article should be tagged NPOV, for the time being. pertn 13:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that the concept is almost exclusively referred to by "Right-Wing/Pro-Israel milieus"? I note that WorldNetDaily is exactly one of the 136 references currently used in the article. Please state your NPOV objections more specifically; which statements are not neutral? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. It was my impression (!) I had not gone through all the sources. Well, let's take nr 1, Phylis Chesler. Scolar warning against the perils of Islam and sometimes critizised as Islamophobe. Numerous apperances in (right wing newspaper) National Review.

Nr 2 J. Warren Kinsella, pro-israel Lobbyist. 3. Article from the Guardian, where the most controversial points have later been retracted. ... etc. But still, after I have browsed a few of the sources I didn't recognize, I must say that I my statements about the use of sources was a bit off the mark. There are actually quite a few good sources cited. I apologize for my mistake. However, that does not mean that one should mention that this talk of "New anti-semitism" is mainly a right wing, pro-Israel phenomenon. (Since the phonomenon mainly recieves attention in these environments)Don't you agree? pertn 11:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The anon IP who made this edit resolves to a range previously used by HOTR. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

That range is used by Sympatico, the largest provider of high speed Internet in Ontario. There are over a million subscribers in multiple Ontario cities who, based on random chance of dynamic IP assignment, can land in that range. --Ben Houston 18:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Only one of them caused chaos on this article by constant reverting and questioning self-evident edits to the point where the page had to be protected for several weeks. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Heh. Anyways, sorry to disappoint, it was me. FireFox 2.0 beta 1 crashed on that page so I switched IE which it turned out didn't have me logged in. --Ben Houston 18:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I find any claims that someone from these ranges is or is not a certain person hard to take seriously after the events of the last few weeks. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Bell Sympatico is consumer side only. And according to the article: "As of March 2006, Sympatico currently enjoys over 2 million subscribers in Ontario and Quebec and is the largest ADSL ISP in Canada." In my experience, trying to stop the gaming of Wikipedia via aggression and bans is like trying to hold water in a fish net. --Ben Houston 19:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Original research

This is not an article I've been following all that closely the last few months—I've been waiting for it to stabilize, but somehow it never does—but I've notices a lot of material removed as POV or original research, usually material hostile to or critical of the theory of a "new" anti-Semitism. So can someone tell me: how is language like "remarks of a kind that for more than fifty years after the Holocaust no one would have been able to make without publicly disgracing themselves" any less POV/OR? - Jmabel | Talk 06:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a quote, it's from a reliable source, and it's about the topic, so how can it be original research? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the trick is to use a formal dispute resolution process. --Ben Houston 18:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem is that a disputed and debated term is treated as if it were generally accepted fact. Same issue with "Allegations of Israeli Apartheid" except the same people who argue for "Allegations" or deletion of that article, here argue for keeping the term plain. Until people are not willing to concede how POV pushing the title of this article is, it will remain an insult to WP:NPOV in both letter and spirit. Besides the title itself, the article reads like an advocacy article with token dissent, not a fact-based representation of an ongoing debate. In particular considering that "new anti-Semitism" is a political term invented by the right-wing of the Zionist political space to descredit liberal critics of Zionism. Anti-semitism is very much alive, but as the few criticisms allowed of the term here show, "new anti-semitism" is very much a debated concept.--Cerejota 06:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The entire article consists of quotes and opinions. There are very few facts at all. And what does the list of anti-Semitic incidends do in this article? It should be in either the main anti-Semitism article or Portal:Current events. // Liftarn

This is the second time you've mentioned a list of anti-Semitic incidents. What list? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me understand: first, you are unhappy of too many "quotes and opinions. There are very few facts" and then you are bothered by facts (unless you think "the list of anti-Semitic incidends" is an opinion). FYI, that is what encyclopedic articles do: they list and systematize relevant information. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Slim, if it's a quote, it belongs in quotation marks. It's not. It's there in Wikipedia's narrative voice. It was when I made my comment, and it is now. That may have been unintentional, but that's how it reads. - Jmabel | Talk 06:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a quote from the Euston Manifesto. If it's not in quotation marks, it should be. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

New concept, academics and other researchers

I tried to rephrase the following sentences. And you reverted it because you think I believe the concept is an "empty class". Impressing! I quote:

"The new anti-Semitism is regarded by proponents as a phenomenon that began to form, particularly in Europe, around the time of the Second Intifada in 2000 and the September 11 terrorist attacks in 2001. Because it is a new concept, academics and other researchers are working to identify instances of it and are attempting to formulate a precise description. Professor Yehuda Bauer of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has called it the "fourth wave" of anti-Semitism to spread across the West since 1945. [5]"

My problem with this section is that the wording of it implies that the problems the "academics and other researchers" have with giving a precise definition of this new wave is just because it is a new concept. The whole idea of A or ONE new thing or concept is what the critics (like me) are sceptical of. I do not believe it is an empty class, I believe that it is an attempt to make a class out of a multitude of things. And I also believe that this is done for a reasons. But my view is not important (and neither is yours, keep that in mind), so my edit was only intended to weaken the implication inherent in the current edition, that there IS something to be described and delimited) and that the reason that it is not yet described is that it is a "new concept". That is a point of view which is not documented. I also wanted to underline the fact that it is not mainly "academics and other researchers" but for instance as many journalists and lobbyists that are trying to make "new anti-semitism" a viable concept. The mere fact that mark strauss (journalist) is given as the second example of someone trying to do this two lines beneath these sentences should prove this point. Hence, I choose to revert your revert, but I welcome a compromise solution or some counter-arguments. pertn 14:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

"Researchers" encompasses everyone who is researching it, whether as journalists or otherwise, so to add "other individuals" looks odd. As for the concept: it IS a concept, and it IS a new one. You wrote: "I do not believe it is an empty class, I believe that it is an attempt to make a class out of a multitude of things." In other words, you do believe it is an empty class. "Animal liberation" is a new concept. It's one that many people find absurd, but that doesn't mean it has no existence qua concept. Please distinguish between ideas, concepts and words, and the issues they claim to point to. You are entitled to say: "You are pointing to nothing." You are not entitled to say: "You are not pointing." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting remarks here. I agree with most of your comments to some extent. But what I am really trying to say is more like "You are pointing at a multitude of things, saing it is one". The class is not empty, it is full of crap. :) Anyway, these are questions of epistomology, and in terms of philosophy I am more of a pragmatist myself. But to the main issue: a NPOV version of all of this. You write: "Please distinguish between ideas, concepts and words, and the issues they claim to point to." And that is exactly what I was trying to do. I believe that the sentence could be understood as that the phenomenon (NAS) is there already, and that it is only because the concept is new that it is still not precicely described. pertn 13:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I feel this problematic sentence is just unsourced and thus falls into OR: "Because it is a new concept, academics and other researchers are working to identify instances of it and are attempting to formulate a precise description." It would be better if we found a reputable source to quote to summarize the situation. This is why I added a FACT tag to it yesterday. --Ben Houston 17:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Please explain exactly which parts of that sentence are OR, and why, with reference to the policy so I can see which part of the policy you're referring to. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The entire article lists instances of exactly that, academics and other researchers doing those things. I'm not sure why it has suddenly become "problematic". Jayjg ^(talk) 17:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If you can find a source that would be the best solution. Without a reputable source to rely on, the problem is that the sentence is not merely descriptive ("there are multiple definitions of the concept") but rather it posits as fact a specific reason for why there are multiple definitions and presents this as a developmental trajectory. As like on other contentious articles, it would be best to stick to reliable sources rather than including original editorializing to tie things together. --Ben Houston 18:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It says people are working to find instances of it, which they are, and the article gives details including sources. I'm very familiar with the OR policy and helped to write it. This is a misuse of it. If you think otherwise, tell me which part of the sentence violates which part of the policy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... maybe we should use a dispute resolution process to resolve these types of things? Which one would you suggest? (I figure I already said what is the OR part of it, and repeating myself trying to convince you, who appears to have made up your mind, isn't really the right way to go.) --Ben Houston 18:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You're trying to avoid answering. Please tell me which part(s) of the sentence are OR, and which part(s) of the OR policy exactly you are relying on. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... I figured I did answer, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Do you think that a formal dispute resolution process could help you determine if I am just trying to avoid answering or whether I am making a serious objection that I have adequately explained? I think it isn't that useful for us to throw accusations at each other except that it builds a lot of mistrust and ill will. --Ben Houston 18:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Ben, which specific parts of that sentence are OR, in your view? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I won't be responding again to this thread until there's an answer: which parts of the sentence are OR, and which part of the OR policy is being relied upon? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This problematic sentence is this one: "Because it is a new concept, academics and other researchers are working to identify instances of it and are attempting to formulate a precise description."

I have no problem with this part: "academics and other researchers are working to identify instances of it" -- that is simply NPOV and descriptive.

The problematic part is later part: "are attempting to formulate a precise description." This phrase, in its reference to "a precise description", implies that there is a pending singular precise description. The serious study of "new anti-Semitism", while related to many fields, is really just sub-field of sociology. Sociology, unlike mathematics, physics, most fields of biology and other hard sciences, tend not to develop singular precise definitions of concepts unless there is only one researcher or coordinated team involved. Instead, multiple interested researchers propose descriptions that are precise within their theoretical frameworks. As time goes by, some definitions may become more accepted than others but even so they are notoriously for imprecision and gray areas. Even in diagnostic psychology the formal definitions of most mental illness (the ones not yet connected to a distinct underlying biological basis) are not precise but rather a lists of symptoms/attributes - the more of which displayed indicate highly likelihood of having that illness. These definitions themselves are refined ever few years as well, thus they are not an end state either but rather the best general consensus at the time. (Also these standard definitions are the result of a well defined process of collectively updating a standard manual under guidance of a major body. As far as I can tell no similar thing is happening in this field thus to say there is here a drive towards a singular precise description seems to be just wishful thinking.) Thus from my reading, this sentence is a mischaracterization of what is going on -- there currently are a number of similar but distinct (competing?) descriptions -- but to frame it as a drive towards a singular precise description, or even just a singular description, is just OR.

The start of the sentence, '"Because it is a new concept", is not really relevant to the non-problematic part (there is no need to justify why people might be looking for more instances.) But when read with the problematic later part it comes across as apologetic -- that the lack of a precise definition is excusable because it is a new concept. But the presumption that there is a singular precise definition pending is based on a misunderstanding of how things in this area of study work as I explained earlier. It is for this reason the apology reads as if it is OR added by a proponent, albeit an unsophisticated one.

Thus the sentence, except for the middle phrase which is descriptive, reads as nonsensical OR based on misunderstandings and wishful thinking combined with some apologetics from the point of view of an unsophisticated proponent. (Apologies for the wordy answer but you asked for it.) --Ben Houston 01:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

No, don't apologize. It was very helpful, and thank you for writing it up. You've persuaded me, and I now agree with you. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Rather than trying to find a way to salvage the middle bit, I've removed the whole sentence, and I'll look around for a source who says more precisely what the sentence was trying to say; if there isn't one, it's probably best just to leave it out. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Puh. Thanks to BenHuston here! I belive you said about precisely what a more articulate version of myself would have said. pertn 08:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The image perfectly illustrates the words "Proponents of the concept argue that anti-Americanism, anti-Zionism, and opposition to the policies of the government of Israel are often either coupled with anti-Semitism or constitute disguised anti-Semitism. [6][7] Critics of the concept argue that it serves to equate legitimate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism, and that it is sometimes used to silence debate. [8]" to the left of the image. (WAS 4.250) 4.250.201.128 01:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Question about top poster image

I've examined closely the image at the top of this article and have posted on its talk page. This image doesn't appear exemplary of Anti-Semitism but actually of Anti-Zionism. (→Netscott) 14:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

In such an instance as this it is common practice that to avoid original research editors must include in a given article that, "X say Y about Z". In this light why am I being reverted when I make attempts to clear this question up? (→Netscott) 15:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Which part of the "Counterfeit Jews", satanic imagery, kippahs, fangs, dollar signs, etc. indicated to you "Anti-Zionism" and not "Anti-Semitism"? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see the image's talk page. Even User:SlimVirgin states that the image is open to interpretation. (→Netscott) 15:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, it's not up to you to examine things closely and make decisions. That's original research. This image is obviously an arguable depiction of new anti-Semitism. Some people will think it's straightforwardly anti-Semitic; some will think it's anti-Zionist and that that's the same as anti-Semitism; some will think it's anti-Zionist and that that's not the same as anti-Semitism. As such, it perfectly reflects the debate over the new anti-Semitism, which is why it's a perfect illustration for this article; and the cutline/caption should not take a position one way or the other. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine just include who's saying it is exemplary of anti-Semitism and stop "leaving it to the reader". What is the problem with doing that? You know that to be in accord with neurtral point of view whenever there's doubt about something (as there is here) then it is standard to edit in that "reliable source X says Y about Z". (→Netscott) 15:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, stop your vandalism and your POV pushing. There's no OR on this page except the OR you're trying to introduce. I have to laugh at how steamed up some people get over this image; it's practically a litmus test. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

What the fact that image image is 1 an example of a copyright violation (a photo of another artist's work) and 2 that it purports to show anti-Semitism when there's only one source stating as much? Please don't patronize me and call my editing here vandalism. (→Netscott) 16:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The article doesn't even claim it's an example of New anti-Semitism - you're the only one insisting we must introduce text which makes that claim. It shows an image which you interpret as anti-Zionism, and which the photographer saw as a clear example of anti-Semitism. As such, it's an ideal image for opening the article, which discusses the very issue of whether some (or all) manifestations of anti-Zionism are anti-Semitism. It's rather abusive to place an "Original research" tag on an article with a couple of hundred references, on the grounds that one image in it is making a claim that it is not even making, and that you insist it needs to make. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, it's not a photo of another artist's work, it's a photo of a demonstration with people holding signs. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

If you don't want to be called a vandal, Netscott, don't edit like one. And you appear to have violated 3RR. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Please tell me what type(s) of vandalism my editing falls under. Please see WP:NPOV#Attributing_and_substantiating_biased_statements. (→Netscott) 16:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Stop wasting everyone's time, including your own. You've made no contribution whatsoever to this article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Stop discounting me as an editor and kindly respond to my questions. (→Netscott) 16:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, you haven't responded to my points. The article doesn't assert it is an example of New anti-Semitism; you are assuming that, and then claiming it is original research based on your assumptions. In fact, it is obviously an example of an image some people will view as anti-Semitism, and others will view as anti-Zionism. As such, it is perfect for the article, which discusses exactly that issue. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Just having the image included in the article without supporting text explaining what it shows is a perfect example of original research. There's only one source claiming it is examplary of anti-Semitism. How is it against policy to to cite that one source's claim? (→Netscott) 16:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Why do you think that simply having the image there is "a perfect example of original research"? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Well to start with the image's name is, "NewASAnti-Semiticposter"... meaning it is anti-Semitic. With no explanation included in the caption there's no context for the image. It's sooner stating, "here's the new Anti Semitism". (→Netscott) 16:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

This is turning into trolling on top of everything else. I won't be responding anymore. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

No, Scott, the name (which nobody even sees when reading the article) means that the photographer thought it was anti-Semitic. However, the article itself does not make that assertion - rather, it makes no claims as to whether it is anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist, both, neither. Various people have looked at the photograph and decided it is one or the other; thus it is a perfect demonstration of the complex issues raised in this article. Can you quote the specific section of WP:NPOV you think it violates? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for having the respect to respond to me civilly Jayjg and not resorting to labeling my efforts as "trolling", that is appreciated. Here is the section of NPOV that applies here. It is entirely within the scope of that policy to cite who's claiming it is an example of anti-Semitism particularly when it is the very source of the image itself. (→Netscott) 17:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You have linked to the section about "Attributing and substantiating biased statements". Currently the caption of the photograph reads A placard at a February 16, 2003, anti-war rally in San Francisco. Photograph by zombie of zombietime.com. Which of those statements do you think is "biased", and therefore needs to be attributed and substantiated? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm referring to the very image itself. (→Netscott) 17:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Which section of the WP:NPOV policy do think deals with images? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, why did you think that the name of that image, "NewASAnti-Semiticposter" came from the photographer? (→Netscott) 17:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say the name of the image came from the photographer. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh really? What does this earlier text you added mean? "No, Scott, the name (which nobody even sees when reading the article) means that the photographer thought it was anti-Semitic. ". (→Netscott) 17:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The name indicates that it is was uploaded for the New anti-Semitism article, and that the photographer himself thought the placard was anti-Semitic. Where did I say that the photographer actually created the name, and why would you even imagine my words implied it? You seem to take very unusual meanings from simple statements; if someone says you have violated 3RR, for which you can be blocked, you claim they are threatening to block you. If someone says a photographer thought a placard was anti-Semitic, you claim they said the photographer named the picture on Wikipedia. If the NPOV policy says that biased statements need to be attributed, you claim this somehow applies to images. I'm trying to assume good faith here, and not attribute this to trolling; is it possible, for example, that English is not your first language? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, you're grasping at straws here. Apart from the dubious file name how could one determine what the photographer (who you brought into the discussion) thought of what he was photographing? If the name was "New anti-Semitism poster.jpg" then of course I'd agree with your contention about the uploader's (SlimVirgin) decision to utilize it when uploading the photo. But as is evident with it being called "Anti-Semitic" there's only one POV meant to be shown with it. (→Netscott) 18:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Grasping at straws? The photographer says right on his website "This surely takes the prize as the most anti-Semitic sign ever seen at any protest rally in the United States. It's anti-Semitic on so many levels that it really bears close inspection..." It's quite obvious that the photographer thinks it is anti-Semitic. You (and others) have stated that it is anti-Zionist. Wikipedia doesn't make either assertion, but merely uses it as a perfect illustration of the crux of the debate. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You've not addressed the file naming issue here Jayjg. From the progression of this discussion this is the only reason that you mentioned the photographer. It is clear that the photographer didn't name the file with the words "anti-semitic" in it as we can see from the file names on the site. (→Netscott) 18:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I have not idea what you're talking about any more; are you going back to that "you said the photographer named it" business again? We've already dealt with that, you invented that claim. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you seriously trying to say that NPOV does not apply to images? Have you even searched the policy for the word "image"? (→Netscott) 17:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Scott, can you please state which part of the NPOV policy you think this image (not statement) violates? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You know Jayjg it is very difficult for me to understand your attempts to thwart my edits that are efforts to bring the article in line with neutral point of view by arguing that NPOV doesn't apply to images. Look for the key words "neutral point of view" in this section of WP:NOR. (→Netscott) 17:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You know Netscott it is very dfficult for me to understand how you think your edits bring the article in line with neutral point of view when you refuse to plainly state exactly what part of the WP:NPOV policy this image violates. You have linked at least two completely different sections in two completely different policies so far, while avoiding actually quoting any policy itself. Please quote the exact words of the exact policy you believe are being violated, so we can all understand the point you are trying to make. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's be honest you and I both know that due to its small size and the difficulty or reading the smaller bits of text on it the image sets up a point of view that says it is exemplary of anti-Semitism (this is true right down to the image's file name of dubious origins). Those who've examined this image properly (like myself) know this view is not fully in accord with the actual content of the image. The very source of the image states that it is an example of anti-Semitism. Neutral point of view policy stipulates that when there is a bias evident the best solution is to cite who is saying what about given content. What is amazing is that the image's name on the actual site of the source is "Zionist_Pigs_Jew_devil.jpg" which again emphasizes what it is about. (→Netscott) 17:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You're the only person who has examined the image properly; the only one who understands it; the only one who understands NPOV and NOR; the only one who understands 3RR. You're probably also the only person who knows what anti-Semitism is, or anti-Zionism. Actually, our content policies serve to protect us from people like you, who arrive at Wikipedia to tell everyone else The Truth. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Well you're disappointing me here SlimVirgin. You're addressing me as if I was a nobody and had no experience around here. Serioulsy what is the problem with citing what the image's source is saying about it? (→Netscott) 18:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Seriously what is the problem with quoting the section of policy you believe it violates? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I have both specifically and plainly. Was I not plain enough in my last explanation? (→Netscott) 18:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Please quote the exact words, as I have plainly requested several times. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg would you kindly cease your wikilaywering? You've not responded to the crux of my arguments. Now you have two editors talking about the need for a relevant caption and you're blowing us both off. (→Netscott) 20:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, you say the current caption violates policy, and keep wikilawyering about exactly what policy is violated, and how. Quote the words of the policy it violates. That's all. This should be easy. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I semi-agree with Netscott. The caption should "establish relevance to the article" and "draw the reader in", not leave the reader guessing what this picture might have to do with the article. A picture of a placard is, in itself, as relevant as a picture of a cat. The caption should explain the placard can be interpreted different ways. Referencing one interpretation is one way of doing that, but not the only way. Gimmetrow 18:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Gimmetrow for bringing your logic to the discussion. I totally agree with what you've said here but still believe that what the source is saying about the source's photo should be included in the caption. (→Netscott) 18:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:CAP isn't policy; it isn't even a guideline. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've been beaten over the head with it before. In any event, the image and caption, as they stand, seem irrelevant to the article. You could establish relevance with a better caption. Gimmetrow 19:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Again well said, I'm not sure why WP:CAP isn't tagged as either a guideline or an essay but the points it makes are just common sense. (→Netscott) 19:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

My two cents as an outsider to this topic. The poster is clearly anti zionist because it specifically mentions Israel, war, and "Zionist pigs" and it was being displayed at an anti-war rally. It is my sense that people can be strongly anti-war, as an extension anti-Zionist because they don't like the way Israel is asserting and defending its sovereignty, and not anti-semetic. I would have thought, notwithstanding the clarification now afforded in the caption, an image in that key prominent position that more clearly is not potentially anti Zionist , might get the article's viewpoint accross better - particularly given the current events in Lebanon. The top image could be used elsewhere in the article and . I would have thought the anti-semetic graffiti in the cemetery in France is a better lead illustration with no ambiguity about motives and suitably repulsive. I endorse Gimmetrow's comments and support the stance adopted by Netscott that the caption should be clear. As an outsider to this topic, I find it a little weird that the current events in Lebanon and reactions to them are not mentioned though I note that this poster dates from several years ago.--Arktos ^talk 21:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

What on earth would Lebanon have to do with this? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the image. It's a terrible example of Anti-semitism. It's ambiguous. Even after reading the explanation, I still read the image in a completely different manner than everyone else. And discussed it with other people. Nobody seems to see the same thing. Therefore, this image is not a good image for this article. Bastique▼^parler _voir 22:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I restored the image because, quite frankly, you didn't provide a reasonable explanation for deleting it. It equates the Jews with evil incarnate. What more do you need?

Adam Holland 22:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The more I think about it though, the more I think it should not be the lead image, it is ambiguous as per Bastique. Can it please be further down the article and the graveyard be the lead image?--Arktos ^talk 22:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Seems sensible to me. I can understand Bastique's inclination to remove the image given that the source for it being demonstrative of anti-Semitism (ie: Zombie of Zombietime.com) is anything but a reliable source. I'll not argue for it's removal though.... just that it's caption needs to remain in accord with NPOV. The idea of swapping the lead image is sensible however given the ambiguous nature of this image. (→Netscott) 22:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. You are intepreting it that way. I'm not. It's completely ambiguous and a terrible example. And certainly shouldn't be the lead. There's an enormity of material out there for New Anti-semitism. This is a piss-poor example. Bastique▼^parler _voir 22:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it obviously has anti-Semitic tones to it, if nothing else, and the photographer gave a lengthy explanation of why it is anti-Semitic in his view. It's the ambiguity, though, that makes it the perfect image for this page. Please don't remove it again, thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to be editing on the article for the rest of the day. Again Bastique I'm inclined to agree with you but I do see the other side of things as well. (→Netscott) 22:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Bastique - as a matter of policy, don't delete images just because you disagree with them. The whole point of this particular image is precisely that it mixes themes and blurs the line between harsh anti-Israeli sentiments and distinctly Jewish imagery. The fact that it's "ambiguous" illustrates the point rather well. --Leifern 22:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

This whole subject is uncomfortable but human history is full of hate and violence and encyclopedias should cover such topics. The placard is designed to shock - but the reasons may vary. It is factual, very relevant, and is a good illustration of the subject. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to edit this again today either. Jayjg...the argument that the image's ambiguity makes it perfect for the article makes no sense to me. The poster is tacky and distasteful, but I'm seeing several things in the poster that make absolutely no sense in the article.

"Counterfeit jew". While I've heard an interpretation of this involving African-American culture, it doesn't fit in the context of the poster. They wouldn't refer to a Jewish person as a Counterfeit Jew. In this poster "Counterfeit jew" is someone who appears to be faithful Jew but isn't. My interpretation.
The fact that there will unlikely be any consensus about this poster is reason enough to remove it. It doesn't illustrate the topic properly. It leads to confusion. Also, if you're trying to make people think then you're just pushing a viewpoint. That's not what Wikipedia is for.
The image is probably anti-Semetic, but it's definitely racist in nature (Capitalist White Man).

Bastique▼^parler _voir 23:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I think we can agree it's not an anti-Israel rally? Don't put that nonsense in there. That's POV pushing. Bastique▼^parler _voir 23:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Bastique, I am sorry but your argument does not seem to make very much sense to me, you seem to be stating that because the poster is racist and anti-semitic it should not be displayed, but the fact that it is racist and anti-semitic is the entire point- the fact that it portrays jewish caricatures normally associated with the extreme right-wing in an event that is part of a movement that is generally considered leftist (the anti-war movement) makes it particularly relevant to this article's subject. Furthermore in my opinion the statement "the fact that there is never going to be agreement on the image is reason enough for it to be removed" really does not hold water considering the fact that the image wasn't even a really issue until today when Netscott made it an issue. I have not seen a single convincing argument for why the picture should be removed or even modified.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Moshe, I didn't say that. How did you read that? I didn't say that. I didn't even lead to that. Why does being leftist have to be anti-Semetic? That's inasne. Bastique▼^parler _voir 01:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Please have the decency the keep this discussion civil, there is no need to call other users "insane". The reason I brought the anti-semitism being associated with the left wing, is because that is very much a part of what this article is about, did you just arrive here with no inkling of this article's subject or the dispute here? what I was trying to say is that there is no reason to remove such a relevant image because it might offend the senses.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't call you insane. I said an idea was insane. It's not the same. And I concede, I thought I understood the concept without reading the article. I'm stepping away now, desperately hoping that this all ends well. Bastique▼^parler _voir 02:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

In fact, there certain groups insist that Jews are "fakes", "counterfeit" etc. not true "Israelites": Here are some of their websites: [21] [22] This is what they mean by "counterfeit Jews", and it exactly fits the context of the poster: The poster is talking about the people (counterfeit Jews) who have taken over Israel and are running America with the help of Satan.

There is no evidence that this poster is one of those people. It's San Francisco. There are a lot of agendas in San Fransisco. I stand by my assertion that you can't assume what "counterfeit Jew" means, not having heard that particular term. It still could mean something different. I don't know. I'm not certain how an ambiguous image supports this article, and I don't know why people can't take the time to find a worthwhile image instead of one that is most likely a stupid piece of art by a talented but idiotic artist. Bastique▼^parler _voir 01:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the image upsets and disturbs people is no reason to remove it; Wikipedia is not censored.
Um, so?
Yes, it was an anti-war rally.

--Jayjg ^(talk) 00:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It's an anti-Semitic image at a left-wing rally, and some people might try to claim it's merely anti-Zionist. That, in a nutshell, is what the article is about. The image is therefore perfect for it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyright status

Unfortunately in a few days time all of this talk regarding this image will be moot as the image is most definitely a copyright violation in that it is a photo that consists of the work of another artist and there's no license detail concerning that artist's work (the creator of the poster) - meaning it'll be deleted. Still in the meantime this issue would be settled in my mind if the caption read what the source of the image states about it being exemplary of anti-Semitism. (→Netscott) 00:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, a copyright violation, funny, so I guess every single picture of any protest is a copyright violation unless we recieve the permission of every single person who drew a poster at the event. I'm sorry netscott, but you are really reaching for an argument.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Not quite there Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg (your name makes me smile btw), this copyright violation logic only applies when the photo consists solely of another artist's work (as this disputed image surely does). (→Netscott) 00:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you quote the applicable policy?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, look at WP:FU#Policy #1, specifically where it states, "Maps and diagrams can often be redrawn from original sources, though simply "tracing" copyrighted material does not make it free. Neither photographs nor sound clips, however, can usually be "transformed" in this way." what this means is essentially the photographer did not convert the unfree image of the poster into something free by merely taking a photo of it. (→Netscott) 00:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Your argument does not hold up, the event was a public protest, the fact that the photograph only clearly shows one poster (although others can be seen) is irrelevant, the poster's creator not only knew that his poster could be shown widely, he wanted it. The idea that this somehow constitutes a copyright violation is utterly nonsensical. I'm sorry to be rude about it but I think you are going to have to move on to another line of reasoning.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not my argument. An editor attempted to upload this image to Commons in accord with the CC tag (you may know Commons only allows "free" images) but due to the fact that the image consists almost solely of the work of another artist it was deleted (by User:Jkelly). (→Netscott) 00:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

This deletion log says it all with the deletion reasoning being "Derivative work" (meaning a photo of an unfree image). (→Netscott) 00:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I just got expert legal advice and I found out what I suspected all along- that in a pciture of a public event like a protest that even if one poster is the only thing that can be seen, the only thing that is necessary is the permission of the copyright holder of the photograph, the person who created the original poster is irrelevant.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I see well you'd better have your "expert" take a look at the rather extensive thread here and refute User:Jkelly's statements. (→Netscott) 00:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I really don't see how that really matter either, JKelly is not a copyright lawyer, he just didn't know that a picture of a public event has different rules.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Was this necessary? I assert that I am actually making informed descisions about what should be hosted at Commons and have made no assertion of expertise when it comes to web publishing laws in the state of Florida. Jkelly 01:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Well in terms of my concerns relative to this image it just needs to be presented with a neutral point of view by adding in the caption about it that "Zombie" of Zombietime.com is the source stating that it is an example of "new Anti-Semitism". (→Netscott) 00:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Please tell me that you didn't just go threw all of the above arguments just so that people would be mroe likely to adopt your suggestion for the caption modification.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Is Zombie a authoritative scholar on the subject? Netscott, you seem to be grasping for straws here. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Humus Sapiens, now you're talking! Where are the "authoritative scholars" on the subject of this image? In terms of the most reliable source surrounding this image "Zombie" is it (as the source of it). This is why "Zombie" needs to be cited here. (→Netscott) 01:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Please hold on a second. I deleted two copies of this images from Wikimedia Commons because this image does not fit Commons' criteria for inlcusion. It is not freely resuable by the consensus standards at Commons because of its status as a derivative work. Please do not turn this into my making an argument that this photograph needs to be deleted from en:, which has an entirely different raison d'etre from Commons and allows for claims of Wikipedia:Fair use. My thinking about the licensing status of this image on en:, and whether or not we should publish it here, is much less black-and-white than the above conversation seems to be suggesting. Jkelly

How on earth is "fair use" ever going to be established for this "Derivative work" were back to the 1, 8 and 10 problem. (→Netscott) 01:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, I'm discussing with others, who are knowledgeable about images on Wikipedia, whether to claim fair use. In the meantime, there's no need for you to get so excited, or to try to cause any more trouble. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually quite calm and am not "causing trouble" please cease your misrepresenting. I do intend to be tenacious about following policy regarding this however. (→Netscott) 01:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You are causing trouble and you're enjoying it; just as you did when you tried to interfere with this image once before, on behalf of a new user who insisted that we say of a lawyer, who had written about new anti-Semitism, that he later went to live in Israel (i.e. was a Jew). [23] I've also just noticed that you've been blocked six times in five months for edit warring, so you know very well what the 3RR policy says. You might fare better as an editor if you were to pay attention to your own policy violations, before lecturing other people who manage to avoid being blocked as often as you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

In fact, this is the only thing you've posted about today from 13.59 until now, practically 12 hours, not to mention your many e-mails to wikiEN-l. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

counterfeit Jew

As someone accused of an anti-Israel political agenda (of course, I have an agenda against the ruling class in Israel, in the PA, and wherever), the image is clearly anti-semitic. I don't think those anti-capitalist agitators have a clear grasp of the Jewish Question, or they would not have used the term "counterfeit Jew," which has been used prejoratively against Jews in general since at least the 1600s, nor would they have invoked the (especialy) blood-sucking animalistic expressions. Genuine revolutionaries, including ones in Islamic countries, employ more responsible forms of anti-zionist (as an extension of anti-imperialist) protest and also warn against both the increasing Islamic character of some psuedorevolutionary movements within Islamic countries & populations on the one hand, and the rise of anti-semitic propaganda within fundamentalist Islam, on the other. All as tendencies which ultimately serve the imperialists and their lackyes (including Israeli, Iranian, etc., lackyes), to the great detriment of the people who inhabit those countries. El_C 00:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

So, do copyright lawyers count as imperialist lackeys? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you know you respond to every comment with a question? :) Bastique▼^parler _voir 01:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Kosher section #2

What do people think about the Kosher section? I'm in two minds about it. We can't include material about the alleged cruelty of certain methods of slaughter without finding a source who discusses it in terms of the anti-Semitism debate, but that will take some research, and until then we have to leave it without a balancing view, which is going to make it a POV magnet. On the other hand, it definitely is discussed in terms of anti-Semitism, and even David Duke has chimed in with a view, which in itself might make it worth keeping. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I doubt you will find sources that discuss it in terms of the anti-Semitism debate, because I don't think animal rights groups seriously consider it a valid claim. This wild "animal rights extremist-anti-Semite" conspiracy seems to me to be backed up with nothing. Is there any evidence presented that PETA is systematically anti-Semitic? Is there a white supremacist neo-Nazi on the board of the Farm Animal Welfare Council? Is there a letter from any group to David Duke saying they appreciate his support of their cause? Those sorts of evidence would tend to provide substance to the claims that there is a link. Right now, these statements are like saying that because Yigal Amir opposed the Oslo Accords, all those who oppose the Oslo Accords are violent assassins. Duke is a neo-Nazi loony trying to get a shred of legitimacy by linking himself to an otherwise-legitimate effort by animal rights activists. We have no evidence to suggest otherwise, so at this point the whole section is guilt by association. Either we include the balancing reliably sourced statements by animal rights groups which explain why they believe shechita bans are necessary (none of these groups make any claims other than that the practice is cruel), and include the fact that many Jews believe that the practice should be made more humane - or we remove the whole thing as fundamentally unbalanced. We could, instead, provide a link to the Shechita page, where the claims and counter-claims are more thoroughly discussed. FCYTravis 19:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

On the one hand, it is definitely brought up by reliable sources in the context of modern anti-Semitism. Abe Foxman, Michael Melchior, and the Orthodox Union, are not "fringe loony groups". On the other hand, various editors who see this material seem to be unable to stop themselves from creating arguments against it, in violation of the original research policy. Even those like FCYTravis, who admit that he will find no sources for the argument, still feels compelled to violate clear policy putting in an argument anyway, for "balance". It seems to be almost a siren call, luring editors, good and bad, to dash themselves against the rocks of WP:NOR. Is that reason enough to leave it out? I'm not sure. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

FCY, you're verging on original research. I'm sure there are plenty of sources out there denying that they've banned it for reasons unconnected to anti-Semitism, and explaining in detail what their reasons are. It's OR to bring in the views of groups like PETA, because they've not been mentioned otherwise. I'm inclining towards removing the section because I think it's going to end up being a magnet for people wanting to add their own views. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

How is it OR to bring in the views of groups like PETA, when animal rights activists are clearly alleged to be anti-Semitic in quotes included in that section? I have tagged the section with an NPOV tag, and would not disagree with your inclination to remove it. FCYTravis 20:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Who made up the argument that it is not anti-Semitic, FCYTravis, PETA, or you? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

No one has said (at least not in our section) that animal rights groups, or PETA, are being anti-Semitic, but that the people instituting the bans might be. It's therefore OR to bring in the views of animal rights groups. If editors add the views of anyone they (but not the sources) feel is relevant, then there'd be no end to it. We should only add material that has been discussed in terms of this alleged new wave of anti-Semitism. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I have added a section which I believe properly explains the issue and withdrawn my NPOV objection. FCYTravis 20:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Sources and quotes

This article seems heavy on biased sources. What is the criteria for inclusion? There are some pretty wild and broad-brushed statements made by people who are almost exclusively Jewish. If they are "sourced" what does that mean? Doesn't the content or neutrality matter on this article, or just that these sources can be linked to? A "link" doesn't automatically make any particular source credible or encycopedic. Why should some of these sources be quoted verbatim, it appears this article provides a soap-box mostly. Thanks. Myung1 06:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is a bias in the selection of sources, but that may be because there aren't that many sources dubunking this conspiracy theory. // Liftarn

Could not agree more. This article is a soap box. I would like to see at TOTAL rewrite. There have been different people talking and writing modern antisemitism, some calling it new, some referring to an upsurge or a new wave and so on. Hence, the concept or the idea should be referred to in an encyclopedia. Preferably quite briefly with links to the differnt individuals that talk about new anti-semitism. However, I will not say that articles like this one helps improve the quality of Wikipedia, or my personal trust in it as a source for balanced information. Sadly, some very competent users seem to disagree with this view and spend quite a lot of time on maintaining this article in it's current form, so I suppose it will stay. I suppose I would create an article about the New wave of New anti-semitism proponents. I will make a very balanced article, source everything, and it will be very useful for the public which of course is very interested in reading about this new phenomenon (an upsurge of people that believe in the phenomenon of New Antisemitism).pertn 14:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the article quotes at lengths to very strongly engaged, yet insignificant, sources. The photo on top (also a very blatant copyvio) is quite symptomatic of this matter.

It reminds me of 2005 civil unrest in France, where a few people insisted on citing far-right blogs and a selection of the most tendentious editorials of and uninformed foreign press to push the idea that the events were somehow connected to islamist terrorism -- a neo-conservative wet dream which disapeared in a puff of smoke as soon at the events settled and accurate analysis was possible.

Here too, I sense much heat and precipitation not helping finding a reasonable view of the problem. Rama 14:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Insignificant sources? With respect, that shows you are completely uninformed. We've used the academic sources who are most engaged in discussing the issue. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring the bogus copyvio issue, can you explain what it is about these sources that makes them "insignificant"? By the way, would you consider this image to be a copyright infringement? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

What sort of academic credentials does this "zombie" person have, as to make him an "academic sources who are most engaged in discussing the issue" ?

Jayjg, I am an administrator on Commons, and I have had my share of copyvios. I do not find your casual dismissal of my remark particularly intelligent or civil. The arguments for this to be a copyvio is that the photo is (trivially) a derived work of the original poster,which is the intellectual property of its author. The person who made the photograph is not free to licence it under a free licence.

Yes, this image is also a copyvio. It is a detail of alarger photograph and was made to underline the presence of the work "new antisemitism" ; do not know why it bears this licence, and I am erasing it. Rama 16:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Rama, you've been attacking this article for a long time for political reasons, probably over a year, as have a small number of others, because you have a strong POV. That's fair enough. This is a wiki. What isn't fair enough is that not one of you have written even a tiny part of it; nor do I believe you would be able to, because you haven't read any of the necessary material. So you are speaking very much from a completely uninformed, disengaged position. That makes your comments hard to see in terms of good faith. I'm willing to engage with anyone who is actually writing this article, but I don't have time to deal with uninformed, drive-by insults. I mean no offense by this, and I hope you'll take the substantive point. I don't think you'd be pleased were I to turn up with problems and insults at an article I knew nothing about, and for which I had done no reading, and that you had been working hard on for some time and knew quite a lot about. I hope you'll give that point some consideration. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not see what authorises you to say things like "for political reasons". Maybe I have not been able to edit much of this article because some particular editors, who perhaps lack emotional distance to the subject, basically lock this article. I do not accuse them of being dishonest or doing so for "political reasons" anyhow. Rama 21:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

We haven't quoted this zombie person, so he is not one of the academic sources referred to; one doesn't need to be a respected academic or commentator to take a photograph and have it used in a Wikipedia article. Now, can you explain your "insignificant sources" remark? As for your photograph, I believe you were the person who added that license to it. It's odd that when you take a photograph consisting solely of a poster which you believe is related to New anti-Semitism, you upload it under GFDL, don't have any issues with it being a "copyvio", and leave it up for months until confronted with it, but when you see an image of a man holding a placard at a protest rally that you don't like, it suddenly becomes a "copyvio". Jayjg ^(talk) 16:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, I was wondering about these images: [24] [25] [26] you uploaded to the Commons, in which you described yourself as the "author of this work", and which you released under various licenses - no similar concerns to the zombie image? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

These images are quite borderline, and it might be a good thing to remove them.

I would like to say that your present behaviour, made of personall aggressions, tu quoque arguments and downright delusions, is a very good illustration of what I said above about people loosing any sort of common sense out of a lack of distance. Rama 21:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

No, what is unaccceptable is for you to turn up here with objections to the copyright of an image you don't like for political reasons, when your uploads show you have up loaded images with exactly the same purported issues (and several of them), which you clearly feel (or felt) were fine, because you agreed with them politically. It's the height of hypocrisy.

What's needed on this page are editors who've done the reading, regardless of POV, period. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I have removed these images as soon as I was informed. Your accusations are thus void. I find it quite appealing that you should make such obviously empty points.

You should understand that your insisting on casting accusations of political bias, even though you know nothing of me personally, makes it difficult to exclude that your present behaviour could be caused by the very political hysteria that your are so prone to condemn among others.

Meanwhile, while I was actually erasing those of my photographs which might infringe copyright, what did you do about the one at the top of the page, incidentally ? Rama 22:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Rama, if you've read the scholarly sources on new anti-Semitism and therefore have edits to make to the page, by all means do so. If you don't, why are you even commenting?

As for the image, I'm discussing how to approach it with someone who is knowledgeable about images on Wikipedia. Regarding yours, you were perfectly prepared to upload those images in the first place, and many more. Are you going to go through all your uploads and delete anything that could be described as a derivative work? I look forward to seeing you do that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Slimvirgin. I must say that some of your comments about people like me are quite to the point. So I'll admit you are right to a certain extent. We should do more of the writing ourselves. However I think you should also recognize that you may have a pretty strong bias yourself here. I am not motivated by my own POV mainly. I would like Wikipedia to be a thorough and reasonable encyclopedia. While I think a lot of good work is done by you and others on this article, I also think that the problem posed by it is a generic problem on wikipedia. It IS a soap box. You can use it to promote your views in subtle ways. The problem with this article is that it is very hard to get opposing views from the vast majority of researchers (including myself) that do not believe that talking about a "new anti-semitism" as a phenomenon as such. Especially this alledged anti-semitism on the left in europe. The reason that it is hard to quote is that the phenomenon/wave etc is not an issue that others than its proponents really talk or write that much about. Who writes articles about a concept that they think is not very precise? Do not misunderstand. I believe that there may be an increase in antisemitism in Europe and elsewhere. But the "phenomenon" as described here, is a vague cathegory mainly used by people with a strong political motivation for it. I feel they use wikipedia to try to breath some life into the concept. I see you are an experienced wikipedian, so I suppose you share my wish for a solid encyclopedia, and you have the right to take offense to us drive-by shooters, but still I must express my concerns about this article. I will try to adress it, but as I have said, I think it will be very hard to source what I belive is a lack of interest in this quite useless term. pertn 18:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Pertn, you've made 76 edits to the encyclopedia. Perhaps you could review our content policies. Regardless of your personal views on the matter, new anti-Semitism is a topic of discussion among serious commentators, and we use them as sources. That's all any article should do. You insult intelligent people by supposing that anyone who disagrees with your opinion must have a "strong political motivation." Maybe, just maybe, a professor in a good university who has been studying European history or anti-Semitism all his adult life knows more about it than you. Maybe the editors who have read what those professors have written know more about it than you too. Maybe we're all capable of reaching decisions based on information rather than simply being politically motivated. It doesn't always do to project. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Now, I was actually trying to be a bit diplomatic here, so no need to go into the trenches. Of course I think that many people, probably including you, knows a lot more about this than me. That is why I call people like me "drive by shooters". I think you percieved my entry as way more critical than intended.But who cares. Actually I have quite a bit of respect for your authority. Anyway. This is not constructive, so I'll find something else to do. pertn 09:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Pertn, you describe yourself as a "researcher". What do you research? Have you been published anywhere? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I prefer to be anonymous. I have no international publications. I do anthropological research mainly on science and technology, so it has little to do with this. So I'm speaking only out of my general knowledge of sociological/anthropological studies. Why do you wonder? pertn 09:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Because you said that the vast majority of researchers (including myself) that do not believe that talking about a "new anti-semitism" as a phenomenon as such; you appeared to have been claiming to have researched this subject, and, along with "the vast majority of researchers", have dismissed it. As it turns out, you have not researched it at all, and your Argumentum ad populum claim (which is unverified),and dismissal of the concept, are meaningless. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I must say I am somewhat purturbed over this invented "copyright issue". Any court in the United States understands that a photographer can do anything he wants with a picture of a public event (like a protest) without consulting the people that created the original posters in the picture (regardless of how many can be seen in the photo) as long as he doesn't do something like crop out everything else in the picture and pass the poster off as a work of his own. Furthermore I think that the people that have come up with the accusation of a copyvio have enough common sense to understand all of this, they apparently have just seen an opportunity to possibly remove a picture that they don't like.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

There's only one true point of contention here and that is that as the lead image on an article entitled new anti-Semitism there is something which apparently some editors want to say is exemplary of it. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. User:Fastfission made a very good point on the WikiEn-i mailing list which I'll paraphrase here: If we were to include the image of the duck-rabbit illusion on the Duck article and not add context to the image in the caption included with it as to who was saying that the image was of a duck then Wikipedia itself would be saying it was a duck. Of course if one tilts their head slightly towards the left then the rabbit appears. Well that is the same thing occurring with this poster image. As the lead image on this article and with no context or citation of who's saying what about it then Wikipedia is saying that it is an example of new anti-Semitism which is 100% out of accord with neutral point of view. (→Netscott) 09:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

content aside, POSTER ROCKS

If the content wasn't such garbage, I would hang that in my living room, seriously, who is the artist? --Tom 02:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Does anybody know who zombie is and should he be referenced? Is that web site considered a reliable source per Wiki? Also, I am serious about wanting to know who the artist is. Please do not delete this section. I think the content/message is abhorent, as stated above. Thanks. --Tom 16:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The copyright holder (the photographer) specifically stated I would like the credit to read "Photo by zombie, www.zombietime.com" or some variation thereof, such as "Photo by zombie of zombietime.com" or "Photo by zombie" with the word zombie being a hyperlink to zombietime.com. I did so. You changed it. Can you fix that please? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

(inserted into thread) Jayjg, I reverted back the caption but like my version better. Is saying a photo came from "zombie" very encyclopediactic? I am mean this is just a picture for an EXAMPLE. The article could use ANY of 1,000s of photos depicting NAS it seems that are better sourced. As mentioned, the pictute IS striking and does make a good point of the hate/scum involved, IMHO of course :) Cheers! --Tom 17:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Zombietime is part of the right-wing blogosphere. He posts images from anti-War rallys the "MSM doesn't want you to see." He has a repository of Muhammad images such as these [27]. Here is his gallery on Flick [28], of "Naked Moonbats." He is a member of this group blog "Little Green Colloquium" [29] (associated it seems with Little Green Footballs). He is a proponent of the recent "fauxtography" fad in the right wing blogosphere and is fairly angry at MSM/Reuterse/CNN. His Mohammad archive, especially the recent stuff such at the link I included, contains a lot of what I consist to be racist and hateful. He focuses on and highlights on the faults of others while being blind to his own. He is a "culture warrior." --Ben Houston 16:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Hard to say, actually: this person seems to enjoy displaying photographs with concise labels as a powerful way of criticism. In this light, what we see at [30] might be understood as a very strong form of self-criticism. Rama 16:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Um, that's fascinating, Ben. Were you thinking of starting a Wikipedia article on him? I'm not getting why this would be relevant in this article. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Red/Brown Axis and neo-nazis wearing Palestinian headresses comments in the article

There is no Chomsky/Buchanan axis, they are not Communist/Fascist, and they are not part of a "Red/Brown" alliance. Why is this allowed to be included, when FALSE? The quote is unreliable, and it hasn't been fact-checked. We cannot merely link to a "quote" and then say therefore "it's reliable", especially when they are false, biased or mere soap-box. Also, I'd like to see some verification that neo-nazis are wearing Palestinian headresses. That's hyperbole and sensationalism from a journalist, not an encyclopedic source or quote. Please do not reinsert false statements and/or biased sources and quotes. Thanks.Myung1 18:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

We quote what reliable sources say, whether we agree with them or not. The source doesn't say either of these people are communist or fascist. Don't removed sourced material and especially don't change a quote, as one of your edits did. Please review WP:V. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

That source and quote are unreliable, please review WP:RS. .Myung1 18:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Please explain what makes the sources unreliable. Please be specific. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I see what you are doing, you appear to want to quote the hyperbole of a Jewish American journalist, have the unsourced material and outright unverifiable content from it disguised as more or less fact in this article. I think that's not the best way to build a good article, but I see how it kinda fits within the rules, technically. Nobody wants to delete the entire source, but out of the entire linked article [[31]], why should we include the author's exceptionally unverified parts from it? Is that the best idea? How many lines does this author deserve in the subject article, more or less? but why include info from him that are Exceptional Claims instead of including the more legit material from that source?Myung1 19:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Are we to understand that Jewish sources you disagree with are ipso facto unreliable? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stop wasting my time. That is not what I said. Schoenfeld should not be assumed to be true just because he's Jewish. He has no proof of a Chomsky/Buchanan axis based on Red-green-brown alliance and neither do you. Improving the content of the article is what you could focus on, instead of sticking up for unverifible quotes supporting conspiracy theories and propaganda and Chomsky/Buchanan hatred. Myung1 21:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

"Chomsky/Buchanan hatred"? Is that some of well known syndrome? Are the groups or websites devoted to it? In any event, you're the one who mentioned that Schoenfeld was a "Jewish American journalist" as if it was significant. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

To: SlimVirgin -- Scrutiny of Sources and Quotes/Exceptional Claims require Exceptional Evidence

We should not merely copy or link verbatim to unrelibale and biased sources and quotes especially when they are patently false with no fact-checking. The mere fact the aticle links to them does not make them reliable or their comments verifiable. We should try to build an article that doesn't get into "conspiracy-theory-land" like the "Chomsky-Buchanan axis" which doesn't even exist.

WP:RS says "Certain red flags should prompt editors to closely and skeptically examine the sources for a given claim."

Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known.
Surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by reputable news media.
Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended.
Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.

I'd like SlimVirgin to skeptically examine and find third-party verification WP:V for the Chomsky/Buchanan Red/Brown axis or something from another more reputable source that would back these quotes up. They are false and unreliable, and do not merit being included. Furthermore, they mislead people. Thanks.Myung1 19:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Myung1, (un)fortunately, your opinion about what constitutes reliable sources is not what determines things around here. --Leifern 19:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Leifern, you are mistaken. The above text comes from Wikipedia policy WP:RS. Do you see reliablility or verifiability in these quotes or the source? Controversial comments could be verified and reliable. The items you want to include are neither. Why do you think that info should be included, when it's unreliable and unverified? That's against WP policy, as well as being false anyway. Please help build a good article. Thanks. Myung1 19:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS is a guideline, not a policy, and the policy it supports (WP:V) states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." These quotes verifiably come from reliable sources - the fact that you think they are incorrect is immaterial. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Why include that "quote" ("Palestinian headresses are worn by neo-nazis"), when there are more verifiable, better and credible quotes from the same source? It seems crazy and non-encyclopedic to pick only that from his article, an item that is exceptional and has no thrid-party back up. Myung1 19:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The quote makes an abstract idea tangible. What other quote would you have preferred? Gimmetrow 20:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

If confuses the reader and tangibly misleads. Chomsky is not Communist and not part of a "Red/Brown" alliance or axis, neither is Buchanan. If this one Jewish barely mainstrem journalist says so, I guess it makes it into this article and it appears in a format that is POV but disguised as "fact". It's sneaky anti-Chomsky and Buchanan hatred. I'm merely suggesting that if we are to include quotes from these types of journalists, Jewish commentators, etc. why cannot we at a minimum choose more appropriate and accurate quotes from them that are mainstream and third-party verifiable? The way the article portrays their one-off quotes, it disguises them as bona-fide fact and practically serves as propaganda. Why highlight any quotes which we know are outlandish, and not try to be NPOV when we do include them or condition them? Myung1 20:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Chomsky certainly has his critics and has been called anti-semitic. It's not POV to state that X says Y about Chomsky. It may be POV if X is not much of an authority, or the selection of quotes gives undue weight to some particular view. You can always find other quotes if you like. Gimmetrow 20:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The quote doesn't say Chomsky is a communist. These objections are entirely spurious. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Your personal opinion regarding Chomsky et al is fascinating, but on Wikipedia we rely on verifiable material quoted from reliable sources. The source of the opinion is clearly stated, and just because you disagree with something doesn't mean it is confusing or misleading. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, we should be clear that the OPINION is just that, and provide accuracy, not a soapbox for conspiracy theories and propaganda. Schoenfeld cannot prove his opinion, and neither can you. You support fringe opinions on Wikipedia, congratulations, perhaps you could consider your personal opinion. Myung1 21:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It's specifically attributed directly to Schoenfeld; it's hard to understand what more you could want. I don't have a personal opinion on the matter, I just follow policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Can anyone help to rewrite this stuff from a "verfiable and reliable" source? Can someone post the article it comes from, and the context withi it in which Schoenfeld equates Chomsky and Buchanan with violent radicals? I think his words might be taken out of context and misplaced here in the Wikipedia article. Did this Schoenfled actually say this? Can someone link to the actual article?

"Gabriel Schoenfeld, senior editor of Commentary magazine, writes that: "Among those burning the Star of David and chanting obscene slogans against the Jewish state in the streets of Europe, there are surely some neo-Nazis; but a greater host of environmentalists, pacifists, anarchists, anti-globalists, and socialists." [49] Schoenfeld calls it a "Red-Brown alliance," and includes in it commentators such as Pat Buchanan and Noam Chomsky, both strong critics of the State of Israel. [49] Myung1 20:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The article is linked, and your bad faith regarding the inclusion of this material is astonishing, and you have violated WP:3RR. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, you exhibity the bad faith but cannot see it I guess, and you should assume good faith in others. Chomsky and Buchanan are not in any Red/Brown axis. That's all I'm saying. There is no link to verify what Schoenfeld actually stated either, or you would produce it. To highlight this supposed axis, not linked or verified, is bad faith from Shoenfeld, and you support that for some reason, that's quite telling. I have not violated 3RR.Myung1 21:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Myung, you're being disruptive. We don't need to know what you think about Chomsky and Buchanan. We need only know what the source says. That's what "verified" means. Have you edited Wikipedia before with another user name or as an anon? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Now Slim, why would you ask that? Just because he moves around and edits with greater ease than ol me who has been in here only since Dec. and has less than 2,000 edits? :) --Tom 21:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I don't know what came over me. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not what "I think" it's about truth and accuracy and building a good encyclopedia, and not providing a soap-box for propaganda and conspriacy theories. You cannot provide any back-up nor a link, to substantiate that one particular non-mainstream author's opinion, which is also patently false, otherwise you could provide just one other source to verify it, but you cannot. It's hard to assume good faith when you're surrounded by everything else but. How many more false comments can this article link to, and call them verifiable and reliable? I see how it works now. See you round the campus!! Myung1 21:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Myung1, there is another way to look at this: SlimVirgin and Jayjg, who are strong proponents of this concept, are acting as gatekeepers on this article and are forcing it to say at a sophmoric level. They are ensuring the article covering a concept they seem to want to push remains unscientific and filled with hyperbole as the above -- it is a fact that a large number of people reading the article people notice this. SV and Jayjg are in fact reducing the credibility of the concept by holding on to the current sophmoric presentation. Its sad really. I think SV and Jayjg act the way they do because they believe in the concept and anyone that criticizes the current state of the article appears to them to be one of those crypto-anti-Semites the article talks about. This is why they act unfair, because they think that underneath you are unfair. Its a self-reinforcing cycle -- if you react to their unfair behavior, you reinforce they prejudices. It has been going on for a very long while. Instead of attacking SV and Jayjg for their behavior, you should, more correctly, pitty them. --Ben Houston 18:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, the article has 136 separate references, many of them scholarly, in some cases representing the views of senior, well-known scholars who've been studying in this area all their adult lives, and who are at the top of their professions. And not one of those references has either been added, or read, by you or Myung. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

You are missing the point SlimVirgin. The existance of reputable references is irrelevant to the fact that you are behaving as a self-appointed gatekeeper on the article and are disallowing people to easily improve what is currently a sophmoric presentation of the research in those references. You are also regularly exhibiting prejudiced against others, just now you said "not one of those references has either been added, or read, by you or Myung." In fact I read quite a few of them two week ago in preparation for editing this article and did my own searches for references. I even, would you believe, took multiple pages of notes. --Ben Houston 22:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Which ones have you read? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the fact that you and Myung only refer to "the truth" (or at least your versions of it) shows that not allowing you to run free around this article is probably the prudent course of action. We cannot allow people to delete sourced information because it does not fit in with their world view.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Critics that should be added

I suppose this critic from a quite reknown publication (Race and Class, Sage Publications) should be included in the critics section, but I also believe that the views held here are so commonplace that they should have a prominent place in the article itself. It is basically a review of the book "a new anti-semitism" but it also critizises the use of the "phenomenon" to critizise and attack people who critizise Israel.

Link to exerpt: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&se=gglsc&d=5006659118&er=deny

Some quotes: The whiff of witch-hunt People carry the virus. Hence the book's many and repeated ad hominem attacks, which make for particularly unpleasant reading. This is the first time in the UK that such an ugly 'hit-list' of anti-Semitic 'carriers' has been published. And it includes not just obvious targets like Professor Steven Rose, the organiser of a scientific and academic boycott of Israel, and Tom Paulin, who has written pro-Palestinian poetry, but a host of others, from Archbishop Tutu and Milan Kundera to Louis de Bernieres and Irvine Welsh, who have expressed disquiet at the treatment of the Palestinians.

Thus the new anti-Semitism or Judeophobia, as the editors would have it, is reduced to a catch-all phrase that covers anything from views on international politics to the careless use of words or images. Such a simplification, alas, blunts our capacity to take on a complex issue.

In a sense, A New Antisemitism? and the whole discourse it reflects are born of defeat: Israel is no longer seen as the victim nation, it no longer commands the sympathy or has the leeway it once did in the popular imagination. (17) The striking out by Jewish commentators, with their fixation on a new anti-Semitism, is a reaction to that knowledge, a mad scrabbling about to regain lost ground. pertn 21:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that, Pertn. This is a review by Jenny Bourne of A New Anti-Semitism?, a book I've been trying to get hold of for two years; every time I order it, I get a note a few weeks later saying there's been a problem with the order, so I don't know whether it's out of print or what. What specific point does Bourne make about new anti-Semitism (as opposed to about this book) that isn't already in the article? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean the "hit list" aspect? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure that the writer has a relevant background. This is the only publication I can find for her, and it's a pamphlet about feminism. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Besides her one "pamplet" (it seems to be a semi-research paper more than anything else - it has a lot of citations) on "Homelands of the mind: Jewish feminism and identity politics", she had a bunch of other publications accessible via Google Scholar: [32]. Her area seems to be feminism, racism/race relations, and literary criticism. Here is another book she published [33]. Another book she edited is here [34]. Her homepage is here: [35]. A good question would be is the journal a quality one? --Ben Houston 22:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I saw her but how do you know it's the same person? And if it is, how is a background in Eng lit and feminism relevant? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually they are different people. Here is Jenny Bourne's bio "Jenny Bourne is a sociologist who has written and lectured on the sociology of race relations, and an activist in the women's and anti-racist movements. She was a member of 'Women Against Racism and Fascism' and 'Women in Black', and has written 'Towards an anti-racist feminism' and 'Homelands of the Mind: Jewish feminism and Identity Politics'. She is a founder member of the collective that currently produces CARF (the Campaign Against Racism and Fascism, (http://www.carf.demon.co.uk). She has acted as consultant to educational initiatives on anti-racism from those of the GLC (Greater London Council) and the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work to the Homebeats CDROM. She works as a senior researcher at the Institute of Race Relations (IRR) (http://www.irr.org.uk). At the IRR, her most recent publications are 'Counting the Cost: Racial Violence since MacPherson' (2001) and “The Life and Times of Institutional Racism,” in 'The Three Faces of British Racism' (2001)." from [36]. I did a more precise Google Scholar search here -- she has a fair number of publications/citations [37]. --Ben Houston 23:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

There are several aspects that could be added (or where this article could be a good extra source). The Hit-list or Macartyism aspect. Her analysis of it as a response to reagain lost sympathy. But also the fact that a quite reknown researcher in studies of racism dismisses it as a politically motivated concept that "is reduced to a catch-all phrase that covers anything from views on international politics to the careless use of words or images. Such a simplification, alas, blunts our capacity to take on a complex issue." I had not heard of JB before I saw this article yesterday, but I believe she is a researcher here: http://www.irr.org.uk/about/index.html pertn 10:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Personal views

Bhouston, do not add your own opinion to this article. I asked you above which of the sources you had read. Could you answer please? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not feel I was adding my own opinion but I understand how you percieve things. Argh... I have instead linked "Jewish lobby" to the new Israel lobby in the United States -- a new article that covers the non-conspiratoral aspects of this ethnic lobby, although it should be expanded to mention the anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists and direct readers to the appropriate articles on anti-Semitism for that aspect. (I also created Arab lobby in the United States if that is of interest.)

In regards to your question, I do not feel that I need to prove to you that I am worthy of editing the article -- if you incorrectly percieve this as avoidance or deciete on my part so be it -- if this further angers you, I apologize, but from my perspective you are asking for me to submit unnecessarily to your gatekeeping and overall attempt to be dominant, that really doesn't jive with my personality and shouldn't be required of me anyways. --Ben Houston 02:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

You were the one who said you had read the main sources, so I asked which ones. I'm taking your reply to mean you haven't. I urge you to do so if you want to edit the article. This is unfortunately the kind of article that everyone thinks they can express an opinion about, but we're here to try to write in an informed way, and that requires research. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

You, SlimVirgin, are presenting me with a choice of either continuing to submit to your gatekeeping and general dominance or have you accuse me of lying because you want to assume the worst -- do you see that from my perspective this choice is a no-win proposition? Your latest accusation rings false anyhow, you just played this game of attacking my honor in order to achieve dominance two days ago. --Ben Houston 02:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

See, in your shoes, I would just say: "I've read X and Y, and I've just started Z, and then I hope to find time to look at A, B, and C." I think that's what most people would answer if they were genuinely interested, were engaged in research, and were serious about making an intelligent contribution, as opposed to being a nuisance. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, now that we understand our mutual differences in style, I think it is clear that we have the same goals - a quality article about the concept of New Anti-Semitism. I'm calling it a night but let's get on with more serious, verifiable and non-original improvements tomorrow and see how it goes. There should be some middle ground here now that we understand where each other are coming from. --Ben Houston 03:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Please note how much time these pointless exchanges consume. I have to say I think this will be my last response. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. --Ben Houston 04:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Jewish/Israel Lobby link

It's an article about a single article - the rest of its contents are original research on your part. As well, your claim that "Jewish lobby" is the same thing as Bard's take on the "Israel lobby in the United States" is POV original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

That article, the Israel lobby in the United States, is very closely sourced to an article written by Mitchell G. Bard, the executive director of a foundation that promotes the US-Israel relationship and also runs the Jewish Virtual Library. The article is hosted on the JVL as well. Understanding subjects like these demystifies them. I also wrote one on the Arab lobby in the United States based on the same source. They are really stubs for the moment, I need to find additional sources. --Ben Houston 04:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

It's an article about a single article - the rest of its contents are original research on your part. As well, your claim that "Jewish lobby" is the same thing as Bard's take on the "Israel lobby in the United States" is POV original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain what you mean in this sentence "It's an article about a single article - the rest of its contents are original research on your part" when you are referring to "the rest of its contents are original research on your part." That article is so closely sourced right now that I don't know what you are talking about.

Also, I am not saying that the article describes what the anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists are talking about any more than the linked word to Israel just before it is saying there is truth to that shit about Israel. But those conspiracies are extreme and hateful distortions of a real lobby though, just like conspiracies about Israel are extreme and hateful distortions of a real country. This perspective is why I linked it. Demystifying things to reality makes people more able to see and refute the racist distortions. --Ben Houston 05:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I will refrain from reverting warring -- there are better ways to handle this. I will start to incorporate how some distort the actions of the lobby into anti-Semitism conspiracies into the linked article. That may make you feel better about that article. Best. --Ben Houston 05:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The term "Jewish lobby" is not synonymous with "Israel lobby in the United States"; that's a very American-centric view. Various "Jewish lobbies" are alleged to exist in France, the U.K., Canada, etc. Moreover, the term is widely used by anti-Semitic sources, and "Jewish lobbies" are accused of influencing all sorts of things besides Israel - Hollywood, civil rights, etc. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we both agree that the new "Jewish lobby" article is a good compromise. I have linked that in. Best. --Ben Houston 19:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Caption

I've added a purely descriptive caption to the image, not saying that it's an example of anti-Semitism or that anyone said it was (but adding refs to some who did). It now says: "Photographed at an anti-war rally in San Francisco on February 16, 2003, this placard mixes anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist, and anti-globalization imagery with some classic anti-Semitic motifs. Photograph taken by zombie of zombietime.com."

As that is pretty well a definition of new anti-Semitism, it's clearly appropriate. I thought of adding a quote from an academic to that effect, but in fairness to the artist, it's probably best to leave out any editorializing.

I've seen a few other examples of the artist's work, which confirm his interest in these themes. That anti-Semitic motifs are in the image says nothing about the artist's intention, which we don't know, so I felt this was the fairest and most neutral way to write the caption. Constructive feedback would be appreciated. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Slim, do you know the artists name or any other details? Do you have a link to his other works? TIA --Tom 19:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll e-mail you about that, Tom, if you have an e-mail address in your preferences. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I've found a couple of mainstream sources discussing this image in terms of new anti-Semitism, so I may add a bit more to the caption. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

A descriptive caption answers my concerns. I assume it helps the reader by adding context. Looks as neutral as one can get while still adding context to my mind.--Arktos ^talk 22:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no doubt that this caption is a vast improvement over what the caption read previously. The citations have added quite a bit although, besides the source I only saw one that actually directly discussed the image itself. A central point in the image that isn't mentioned (perhaps it doesn't need to) is that it's anti-Israel <-> U.S. as well as anti-Americanist. (→Netscott) 14:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Then you haven't read the sources. They're there because they mention the image. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually I read them and yes the image is included and/or mentioned but besides Zombietime there's only one other page that actually discusses it. Mentioning and discussing aren't the same. The FrontPage mag. essentially repeats Zombie's commentary, The Santa Cruz Sentinel has the Holocaust survivor mentioning it and the Windsofchange tacks the image onto an article that discusses the return of anti-Semitism (it's addition there is essentially just a citation of FrontPage). Essentially none of the citations mentions "new anti-Semitism"... which inclines one to glance over at Wikipedia:No original research. (→Netscott) 16:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Two of the sources discuss it in terms of new anti-Semitism (the new wave of anti-Semitism, or whatever they call it). Look, I'm not going to carry on arguing with you. I see no good faith in your editing, and you use a bizarre interpretation of our NOR policy (your own OR, in fact), so there's just no point. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact that A.N.S.W.E.R. is the author of the poster warrants being mentioned in the caption SlimVirgin. Wikipedia readers should be able to read the article on this group to establish the validity (or not) of the poster. (→Netscott) 09:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

That Wikipedia even has an article about that group means something. (→Netscott) 09:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

We don't know who made the poster. I'm in the process of looking into that, as I said already. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Would you kindly restore that wikilink? The www.jpost.com article you used to reference that image states as much. I think we can both agree that the Jerusalem Post is a reliable source. (→Netscott) 09:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, please stop questioning every single thing I do. It is not a journalist with the JP who wrote that; it is on the newspaper's blog. I am in the process of finding out who the artist is. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine, all that I ask in return is that you discuss removing content that I add before you do (which so far you have refused to do). (→Netscott) 09:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Nothing gets through to you. I had already said on this page that I was in the process of finding out who the artist was. I then told you again four times; I believe this is the fifth. Yet still you have to revert. Because you know better again, don't you? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

As you not doubt know Wikipedia:Reliable sources do not recognize personal blogs. But we should both be in agreeance that blogs found on the sites of http://www.jpost.com/ (an organization very liable in terms of court pursuit) are of a different class. If that is the case then my edit should stand. (→Netscott) 09:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Also I'd appreciate if you'd at least read edit summaries as I stated as much when I edited in that wikilink. (→Netscott) 09:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

And why did you shorten the Wikilink to the the anti-war rally in San Francisco? As it stands now the wikilink looks like it leads to an article on anti-war rallies. (→Netscott) 09:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

There was too much blue. Makes it hard to read. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Does my logic make sense about how the wikilink now merely looks like it's to an article about anti-war rallies then? (→Netscott) 09:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It is a pity that I have to cite policy in order for my good faith edits to stand but here goes. From Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Evaluating_reliability:

Below this are sources which, while not tangible, can be providers of reliable information in some cases, for example websites and blogs, particularly those associated with reliable sources of information. For example, the blog of an academic department is not merely a personal blog, but should be looked at in the totality of the source.

SlimVirgin would you kindly stop edit warring and restore my Wikilink in good faith? (→Netscott) 09:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

This is my last response to you. For the sixth time — the source is a blogger. I am in the process of looking into who created the poster. The policy is not WP:RS. It is WP:V. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok I'll assume good faith on your part and ask how is a blogger for a respected news organization like the The Jerusalem Post (BEN-ZION JAFFE) is not a verifiable source? Please don't forget that it was yourself who added this reference. (→Netscott) 10:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

A source can be acceptable in some instances but unacceptable in others, this is especially true with bloggs, even if the person is affiliated with a reputable and reliable source with their day job, when the author is using an independant blog it is entirely different does superman speak for the daily bugle? (I just made that name up since I have no idea what newspaper Clark Kent actually works for).- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course and WP:RS allows for that (as I illustrated above). Please note that this Jerusalem Post blog is not "independent", one can be sure that the editors of Jerusalem Post exercise considerable control over what goes into the blogs found on their site. (→Netscott) 12:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I will not be so certain. Most newspapers that host a blog, are very clear in stating that they do not excerise editoril control on blogs they host. You can't, and it is not possible... die to the nature of the medium. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, BackSpin the weblog of Honest Reporting is attributing the poster to A.N.S.W.E.R. as well. (→Netscott) 15:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand this strange discussion at all. Who made the poster is clearly no secret. He is a very well-known graffiti artist in the Bay Area. --Denis Diderot 14:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Who is that then? (→Netscott) 14:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, when Tom asked: "Slim, do you know the artists name or any other details?", she answered: "I'll e-mail you about that, Tom". So perhaps there is some reason why we shouldn't post his name here that I don't know about. --Denis Diderot 16:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well that's fine then all that's needed in the caption is proper attribution to A.N.S.W.E.R. as being the organization that "sponsored it" (ie: by A.N.S.W.E.R.) thereby permitting Wikipedia readers the opportunity to easily better inform themselves about that organization. (→Netscott) 16:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Several organizations sponsored the rally, if that's what you mean. Not just ANSWER, but also BAUAW, NION, and UFPJ. --Denis Diderot 17:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well there's two indepedent and reliable sources specifically attributing that poster to A.N.S.W.E.R. The Jerusalem Post blog and Honest Reporting's BackSpin weblog. (→Netscott) 17:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

They are not independent, they used the same source, and it was just because the posters were near the ANSWER banner. She wrote herself that "I'm not sure they were actually marching as part of any group." --Denis Diderot 17:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm not following you. Jpost.com says, "The group that put out the poster was InternationalAnswer. A.N.S.W.E.R. is an anti-war group whose name means Act Now to Stop War and End Racism." and BackSpin says, "This is the placard prominently displayed by the main organizers of the rally, International A.N.S.W.E.R.:". Which link has the line you're talking about? (→Netscott) 18:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The link is here. The artist has been accused of anti-Semitism before. He has stated that he isn't anti-Jewish but against Zionism and capitalism. --Denis Diderot 20:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[HBerlin-1] Berlin, Howard, "[http://www.drberlin.com/op-ed/battles.htm "Jews, Muslims on same side of several battles", NewsJournal, March 8, 2004

[WND-2] World Net Daily, [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29841 "Europe's new face of anti-Semitism 5 countries now ban production of kosher meat as synagogues burn, boycott of Israel continues", December 3, 2002

[JWR-3] Dickter, Adam, Fear over European kosher bans, World Jewish Review, July 2002

[RSW-4] Wistrich, Robert S., "European Anti-Semitism Reinvents Itself", American Jewish Committee, 2005, pg 10

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]