Misplaced Pages

Talk:New antisemitism: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:57, 1 March 2007 editJayjg (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators134,922 edits questions← Previous edit Latest revision as of 19:52, 23 December 2024 edit undoYr Enw (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,265 edits →Changing wording: ReplyTag: Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{trollwarning}} {{Talk header}}
--------
{{GANominee}}
{{WPCD}}
{{WikiProject Jewish history}}
{{controversial}} {{controversial}}
{{Article history
{{FailedGA|16 September 2006}}
|action1= FAC
{| cellpadding=3 cellspacing=0 style="float:right;text-align:center; border:solid 1px black; background:rgb(230,245,230);margin=5"
|action1date= 16:55 24 December 2006
| align=center|]
|action1link= Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/New antisemitism/archive1
|-
|action1result= failed
| ]
|
|}


|action2= GAN
==Flannery section==
|action2date= 2007-03-25
|action2link= Talk:New antisemitism
|action2result= failed
|action2oldid= 117667255


|currentstatus= FGAN
See ]
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|1=
{{WikiProject Jewish history|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Discrimination |importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Israel |importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Judaism|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Globalization |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Politics |importance=Mid}}
}}
{{copied|from=Antisemitism|to=New antisemitism|from_oldid=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Antisemitism&oldid=216176663|to_diff=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=&diff=prev&oldid=216792423}}
{{shortcut|WT:NAS}}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|a-i}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 20
|minthreadsleft = 5
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = Talk:New antisemitism/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index
|mask=/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes}}


== Evaluating authors ==
==Mediation==


I don't know quite where this belongs, but there are factions in the American political landscape who are pro-Isreal but antisemitic. That has become increasingly clear since 2016.
It has become obvious to me that the various disputes relating to this page cannot be resolved by further dialogue among the participants. I believe that a comprehensive mediation is the only way forward. Do others agree? ] 05:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
:Yes, that appears to be the only way forward. ] 08:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
::I would agree to mediation only if we can find a mediator, formal or otherwise, who is very knowledgeable about the content policies and who is himself/herself a good editor. I'd be happy with Mel Etitis, though he's indicated he may be too busy. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 08:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
:::I agree, and would be happy with Mel as well.--] 13:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
::::Sounds good to me. ] 14:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::I have no problems accepting Mel. ] 03:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I've been run off my feet. I'll be having a closer look at the article and the debate this weekend. --] (]) 11:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


In general writing intelligently about claims of new Antisemitism requires look at several factors, e.g.,
I'm afraid that things have stalled; ] has done a sterling job characterising one side of the debate, but it's been nearly a week and there's nothing for the other side. Could someone provide a similar account of the CJCurrie, G-Dett, GraceNote, Pertn, Catchpole, Itsmejudith, and Mackan79 side please? --] (]) 11:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
#Does the author investigate adverse claims or just take them as true
#Does the author apply the same standards as used for other countries
#Does the author distinguish among, e.g., Israel, Israeli citizens, Jews?
#Does the author put events in context?
Discussing any of these potentially runs afoul of ]. -- ] (]) 14:35, 11 December 2023 (UTC)


:"pro-Isreal but antisemitic" I do not see much of a contradiction here. Supporting Israel for political reasons does not equate to supporting Jews or supporting the rights of Jewish minorities in various countries. In the last few years, I have encountered Greek ] voters who support an alliance with Israel (against Turkey), but have no problem blaming Jews for every social or economic problem faced by the entire world. ] (]) 23:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
===Help requested===
::You two need to read these articles:
I must admit that, having waded through the Talk page and the History of the article, I've got an idea as to the groupings of editors, and some notion as to some of the roots of disagreements, but (as so often happens) once battle lines are drawn they tend to become obscured by a host of unrelated or tangentially related disagreements. It would really help if one editor from each side of the divide could state here as fully and sympathetically as possible what the other side is arguing for. --] (]) 16:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
::https://www.jpost.com/opinion/terra-incongnita-everyone-i-hate-is-hitler-dangerous-politicization-of-antisemitism-473188
::https://www.commentary.org/articles/robert-wistrich/the-new-war-against-the-jews/
::https://www.jpost.com/blogs/the-warped-mirror/from-al-jazeera-to-columbia-university-joseph-massads-obsession-with-israel-364634
::https://brandeiscenter.com/ali-abunimahs-orwellian-definition-of-anti-semitism/
::The idea that "there are factions in the American political landscape who are pro-Isreal but antisemitic" doesn't hold ground, let alone "has become increasingly clear since 2016". Your anecdote doesn't prove otherwise. Wake up! ] (]) 01:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


== Time Magazine cover story ==
:I think I could start this for CJCurrie, G-Dett, GraceNote, Pertn, Catchpole, Itsmejudith and myself, if maybe others could fix or elaborate, meaning I would represent the Slim, Jayjg, Leifern position as well as possible. I could address 1) What to do with Flannery, 2), Whether and to what extent the "Responses" section should be changed, 3.) Scope issues relating to lead and to IJV or other material. I'll start unless someone else volunteers. ] 17:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
:: I'll just jump in here, it it is ok. (move it if you want to structure this in another way). I am fine with the points below, but I also think that the responses-section is a symptom of a more underlying problem: Should the article be about a concept, or about the history of contemporary antisemitism? I think many of the problems can be traced back to this. Now, facts about contemporary antisemitism are presented in a way that may implicitly imply that these facts support a hypothesis about AS today. I believe that there should be an article strictly about the debated concept and that the documentation of antisemitism and antizionism today should be presented in a different article without being related to a specific debated and politically laden concept. This would make this article less controversial as well. ] 10:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


*Thanks for this. Could someone from the other group of editors do the same sort of thing? --] (]) 12:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC) The words "The New Antisemitism" appear in large letters on the cover of the March 11, 2024 issue of Time Magazine... ] (]) 15:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
:::Mel, can your mediation cover the question of the scope of the article and how it fits in a series of articles as Pertn suggests? I have suggested that there should be an article on ] and that this would take the weight off this article. Thanks. ] 14:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Naturally I object to this kind of false distinction ("New antisemitism as a concept" vs. "Real antisemitism in the 21st century"). Opponents of the concept of "New antisemitism" inevitably try to divorce it from what they view as "Real antisemitism", reserving any blatant acts of antisemitism for an article about "the real stuff", and not about the "fake political concept intended only to deflect criticism from Israel". However, not only does this division of material assume the conclusion, but it also ignores the fact that those who insist that there is a "New antisemitism" provide example after example of activities which they think constitute it. How would it be possible to properly present their view without actually listing the specific actions that are alleged to make up its parts? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 14:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


== Lede ==
:I had planned to take into account pertn's comment (which, ''pace'' Jayjg, does concern a genuine distinction: "new ''x'' normally refers to a variety of ''x'' that is novel in itself, in its proponents, in its justification, in its provenance, or something of the sort, whereas "''x'' in modern times" doesn't, it simply refers to the same old ''x'' still going on). How the article deals with that distinction is another matter, and I'll reserve judgement. --] (]) 15:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


One of the two key citations for "critics" is the David Hirsh piece that repeatedly refers to the use of antisemitism accusations as a weapon. As such I would suggest it's not controversial to mention "weaponization" in the lede. That's what the RS says. ] (]) 18:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
====Next stage====
Do those involved accept that the characterisations of their positions and arguments are accurate and fair? --] (]) 18:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


:I think perhaps a better balance can be struck by making it more explicit this is a ''belief'' rather than a “concept” (as the lede currently states, and unduly reifies it) ] (]) 05:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
:I've been wanting to respond briefly, but simply haven't quite put it together yet. I'm assuming we're still waiting for a comment from Slim or Jay, though? In any case, I'll try to respond today.] 16:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


== Changing wording ==
====Slim, Jayjg, and Leifern (SJL)====
I see three major issues:
#Flannery,
#The Responses section, and
#Scope and International Jewish Voices (“IJV”)
I'll refer to CJCurrie et al as CGM if that's ok, based on volume of commens, while noting that we may all differ on specific points.
=====Flannery=====
Regarding the Flannery discussion, the SJL position is flexible. SJL rejects the idea that Flannery should be removed altogether, because they see it as reliably sourced and relevant. It is 1.) Relevant, because it addresses the history of antisemitism on the Left, as a background for the current phenomenon, and to explain to what extent NAS is new. It is 2.) Reliably sourced because it comes from an eminent historian of antisemitism. Moreover, it represents his most recent commentary on the subject, even if previous statements diverge. Additionally, CJCurrie's specific criticisms are primarily original research, as they have not previously been published, and therefore should not be considered relevant.


As the opening of the article implicitly describes the existence of new antisemitism is factual while in reality its existence is highly debated, maybe the wording should be changed to clarify that it's a proposed idea that may or may not be factual? ] (]) 02:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Nevertheless, SJL remains open to amending the specific treatment of the Flannery material to accommodate new sources.


:I think there's more dispute over the interpretations of the facts than about the actual facts. No informed person of goodwill would deny that some people on the political left hate Jews, but then there are endless ] debates about whether hatred of Jews is "baked in" to certain representative and characteristic forms of leftist doctrine, or whether those forms of leftism must be excluded from the definition of "true" valid leftism, or whether it's a mere personalistic aberration of certain individuals etc. etc. ad nauseam... ] (]) 19:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
=====Responses section=====
::@] The rest of the article still contains plenty of criticism of the concept, it's only the opening sentence that's changed to something that, in my view, has no consensus from reliable sources. The previous opening sentence to me seemed perfectly neutral and factual and the new one just seems like an effort at pushing ]. ] (]) 17:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Regarding the Responses section, the arguments have not been as clearly fleshed out, but fall into two broad categories: 1.) Whether specific sources are accurately characterized, and 2.) Whether the section's scope or title should be changed away from "Responses." Regarding 1.), SJL generally argues that the characterizations are accurate, noting the most relevant material to the concept of NAS. Regarding 2.), SJL argues that the section describes responses by governments and universities to the emergence of NAS, and thus is appropriately titled. Moreover, SJL argues that there clearly have been such responses to – whatever we want to call it – the concept or phenomenon of NAS. Thus, a section on these responses is entirely appropriate to the article on NAS.
::I think that this issue still deserves more discussion, and I would encourage @], @] and any other interested editor to participate. ] (]) 17:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
:::I have made a suggestion above that the word "belief" might be more appropriate in the lede, to reflect this. ] (]) 19:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 October 2024 ==
Still, SJL have stated their openness to changing the title to something like “Actions by Governments and Groups.”


{{edit extended-protected|New antisemitism|answered=yes}}
=====Scope and IJV=====
The following line need to be removed or reworded as it is highly subjective.
Regarding the scope issue and the IJV material, the arguments again have not entirely been fleshed out. Essentially, SJL argues that CGM are trying to insert critical material which is not relevant to the concept of NAS except through their own original synthesis. Regarding IJV, it is argued that the group has not addressed NAS, but merely commented on a perceived lack of openness to criticism of Israel, primarily within the Jewish community. Specifically, the group has not addressed the confluence of antisemitism among the Left, far-Right and Islamism, the central thesis of NAS. It is not for us to decide that their statements are a criticism of NAS. Moreover, the only basis on which their comments could be made relevant in this way would be to assume the straw-man that NAS accuses all Israel-critics of being antisemitic. We should not make this assumption.


, typically manifesting itself as ].<ref name="Fastenbauer 2020">{{cite book |author-last=Fastenbauer |author-first=Raimund |year=2020 |editor1-last=Lange |editor1-first=Armin |editor2-last=Mayerhofer |editor2-first=Kerstin |editor3-last=Porat |editor3-first=Dina |editor4-last=Schiffman |editor4-first=Lawrence H. |title=An End to Antisemitism! – Volume 2: Confronting Antisemitism from the Perspectives of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism |chapter=Islamic Antisemitism: Jews in the Qur’an, Reflections of European Antisemitism, Political Anti-Zionism: Common Codes and Differences |location=] and ] |publisher=] |pages=279–300 |doi=10.1515/9783110671773-018 |doi-access=free |isbn=9783110671773}}</ref>{{rp|296–297}} ] (]) 00:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Regarding the lead and general scope, SJL argue that NAS is the concept of a new confluence of anti-Semitism among the Left, far-right and Islamism. As such, they argue that the lead is accurate, and reflects the proper scope for the article. While certain writers do focus on the issue of anti-Zionism and criticism of Israel, this is only one aspect, and is secondary. The primary theory, as discussed by academic writers, regards the new alliance between previously unaligned or even hostile groups. As such, this should be the standard of relevance for the article, and is accurately and appropriately reflected in the lead.] 19:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


:it seems ok to me. why do you object to it? ] (]) 06:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
====The other side====
:This is a tough one. The source doesn't actually talk about "new antisemitism" or describe it as anti-Zionist. Instead, it's referring to its own concept of "new anti-Zionist antisemitism", and it's unclear whether this is the same thing. ] (]) 02:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
To look at the same three issues outlined above:
#Flannery,
#The Responses section, and
#Scope and International Jewish Voices (“IJV”)


{{notdone}} Marking edit request as completed due to no consensus. -] (]) 10:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
=====Flannery=====


{{reflist-talk}}
''It is argued:''
:That Flannery should not be quoted in this article, because
:*His writings pertain to an era when NAS was not under debate, so the arguments pertain to a different phenomenon than what is covered in NAS
:*The most recent book is published by the Catholic Church, which amounts to self-publishing, hence not noteworthy
:*In any case, Flannery interprets his own sources in a way that discredits his views, so they should not be included

=====Responses=====

''It is argued:''
:That the section is mislabeled, because the various organizations do not explicitly accept the premise for NAS but instead focus on antisemitic incidents per se. A more neutral heading, one that doesn't accept the premise behind NAS, is needed.

=====Scope and International Jewish Voices (“IJV”)=====

''It is argued:''
:That the IJV initiative is relevant to NAS, in that the IJV objects to the (alleged) practice of labeling criticism of Israel, even radical criticism, as antisemitic or the result of self-loathing.

--] 18:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

==Leifern's comments==

I can only speak for myself - Slim, Jayjg, and I have never sat down and compared notes, and I don't even know who these fellow editors are in real life.

The definition of New antisemitism is provided in the article itself, but if I were to paraphrase it: the central thesis behind those who advocate its existence is that it is antisemitism in effect and often in intent within the pretext of hostility to Israel. None of the proponents of NAS claim that mere criticism of Israel constitutes NAS; nor that it has a home on the political spectrum. Quite the contrary: they observe that whatever differences may exist on other issues, those who speak and practice NAS find common cause in demonizing Israel for no other apparent reason than that it is a Jewish state. In other words, while they observe that the confluence is there, it doesn't define the phenomenon.

I've always had problems with the term "concept." Really, we're talking about a phenomenon here that some say exists, and others don't.

I think the article at the moment suffers from the kind of bloating that is typical in contentious, unstable articles - where all sides want to include as many citations as possible. I much this prefer to revert warring, and I would warn against efforts to stop the tendency at the moment.

As with all other contentious issues, it's important to draw careful distinctions. I've corresponded privately with IJV (so I'll concede that my correspondence isn't an admissible source), but they've made it clear that they are against antisemitism on principle and agnostic on the phenomenon of NAS. What they object to is the notion that only viewpoints that fall within a certain range are acceptable in the Jewish community. Their contention is debatable in itself, but it doesn't support the argument that assertions of NAS are only intended to squash a constructive debate.

I think the issues need to be parsed:
1) Does NAS exist? Those who believe it does have evidence in favor of it, and there is lots of it.
2) Is the charge of NAS used as a means to stifle constructive debate about Israel's policies? Again, those who argue this should present evidence.

It seems absurd to me to claim that since some people possibly throw around the charge of antisemitism too readily, it can't possibly exist. But that's an editorial comment. --] 13:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

:That anti-semitism exists is not something that I imagine anyone would dispute. Whether there is a distinct phenomenon which ought to be described as "New Anti-semitism" is a lot more problematic, and it only confuses the issue to conflate the two questions. ] 07:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

==CJCurrie's response==


(i) ''Do those involved accept that the characterisations of their positions and arguments are accurate and fair? --] (]) 18:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)''

:I accept that Leifern's summary of my position concerning the Flannery paragraph is both fair and accurate, although it may be incomplete. Flannery does more than "interpret his own sources in a way that discredits his views". Some of his assertions, including at least one cited in this article, are demonstrably false.

:Leifern's other statements under the heading of "The Other Side" also appear to be fair and accurate.

(ii) I do not, however, agree with Leifern's comments on the larger issue of defining "new antisemitism".

:The most fundamental difficulty in defining "NAS" has always been the elasticity of the term itself. "New antisemitism" has been defined in different ways by different authors, and appears to have slightly a different connotation in Europe and America. As such, the term may be regarded as designating either a '''phenomenon''' or a '''theory''' depending on which definition is in use.

:Some authors have used the term "New antisemitism" to describe contemporary antisemitism, with particular reference to a perceived increase in global antisemitism since 2000. Others have used the term to designate situations where aspects of "classical antisemitism" have been incorporated into criticisms of Israel. In both of these situations, the term "new antisemitism" may be accurately described as referring to a '''phenomonen'''.

:This is not the only manner in which the term has been used. Since 2000, several authors have used the term "new antisemitism" to advance the view that certain positions toward (and criticisms of) the State of Israel are inherently antisemitic. This perspective often regards anti-Zionism, binationalism, "excessive and disproportionate" criticism, and "drawing a moral equivalence" between Israel and its enemies, to be ''prima facie'' evidence of antisemitic behaviour. (The last two categories are, of course, ambiguous in nature.)

:The authors who promote this definition of "new antisemitism" represent one side in a much larger series of debates relating to Israel and Zionism. Many opponents, including Judith Butler, Tony Judt and Brian Klug, have argued that this interpretation of "new antisemitism" has been promoted with the intent of stifling criticism of Israel from both Jewish and non-Jewish sources. Although no proponent of the term "NAS" has ever suggested that ''all'' criticism of Israel is antisemitic, many opponents believe that their preferred range of "acceptable" criticism is so narrow as to make meaningful criticism all but impossible.

:When used in this sense, "NAS" is most accurately described as referring to a '''theory'''.

:Some authors have also used the term "New antisemitism" to advance the view that antisemitism is now more common (or more dangerous) on the left-wing of the political spectrum than the right. There is no agreement as to the accuracy of this position, and this usage of the term is also most accurately described as a '''theory'''.

:If this article is to be improved, it must accurately reflect these different usages of the term.

::I happen to agree that the term only makes sense to the extent that it describes a phenomenon. The inherent difficulty of accusing anyone of bigotry of any kind, is that it is an accusation about what is in the accused person's mind. Most people are either unaware of their own prejudice and/or make great efforts to deny it. Add to that the complexity that accusations of NAS have less to do with ''intent'' than ''consequence'', and it's easy to get muddled up. The charge that some types of anti-Israeli rhetoric amounts to antisemitism has to do with the effect of what is said and done - those who are accused may not harbor any antisemitism when they denounce Israel, but whether they like it or not, or mean to or not, they are fueling hatred of Jews. While it is understandable that some of these critics feel unfairly put upon, the accusation leveled against them is no more "radical" than the accusation they level against those who support Israel's existence, policy, or decisions. --] 13:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

:::You are probably aware that the concept of "antisemitism in effect, if not intent" is both controversial and multifaceted. There is a legitimate argument to be made that some critics of Israel have unwittingly given voice to statements and positions that are genuinely antisemitic, whether through naivete, historical ignorance, or a combination of the two. (My recollection is that the McShane Report addressed this particular issue in its assessments of contemporary antisemitism in Britain.) The problem is that some proponents of the term "new antisemitism" have used the argument of "antisemitism in effect, if not intent" to cover a wide array of positions toward Israel, some of which have no connection to "classical antisemitism" whatsoever. Opponents of the term have, understandably in my view, responded that this is (i) an unfair accusation, and (ii) a trivialization of the term "antisemitism".

:::Once this article is improved, it will have to deal with this issue in a fair and sophisticated manner. ] 00:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

(iii) Leifern writes: ''I think the issues need to be parsed: 1) Does NAS exist? Those who believe it does have evidence in favor of it, and there is lots of it. 2) Is the charge of NAS used as a means to stifle constructive debate about Israel's policies? Again, those who argue this should present evidence.''

:With respect, I do not believe this is the correct approach to fixing this article. It is not within our mandate to determine whether or not "NAS" exists or whether it has been used to stifle constructive debate. What's important is that some '''published sources''' have articulated the former view, while others have articulated the latter. Our task is to summarize both positions in a fair and accurate manner. ] 03:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

::Oh, I didn't mean to imply that this article should resolve these issues; but what I did mean to say is that the article shouldn't confuse them. --] 13:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

:::If you mean that the article should distinguish the various usages of the term, I agree. ] 00:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Leifern gives a good summary of the concerns about the "Responses" section. As regards the IJV, the point is not that ''we'' think it's related to NAS but that the sources do.--] 19:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

==Mackan79's response==
Leifern and CJCurrie get the main points above, so just a few thoughts:
#Re Flannery, I think there is a problem with using Flannery's quotations of other authors. When looking for material, I think we should avoid second-hand quotations where contested.
#Re Flannery, I also see a problem with using controversial opinions in what is supposed to be a neutral history section. While much of the article documents controversial opinions, and appropriately, I think that becomes less appropriate in a neutral history section. (Thinking particularly about the "the further left one goes the more the antisemitism" statements here.)
#Re scope, I think CJCurrie lays it out quite well. I'd note this is precisely what Klug argues, that there are 3 different things being described as NAS. I agree this needs to be clarified, while also allowing that some consider it all the same phenomenon.
#If we clarified that, I also think it would help the problem with the Responses section, that it currently seems to be offered in support of the controversial NAS "theory" through our arguable ]. If we acknowledged the potential distinction, that issue might also be resolved without having to do much more.
#Re scope and IJV, this is my main issue. Essentially, I think SJL ignores the second main route of relevancy to this article, of the opposition, which argues that the NAS theory stifles fair debate. Interestingly, our article clearly acknowledges this position in the discussion section, where it's well represented. Yet, with responses and evidence, it seems to be disregarded. I think the opposition argument should be considered relevant for both.
#Finally, as G-Dett points out, that analysis may not be necessary, if we just focus on the connections drawn by the sources. At the same time, I'd simply note that our use of Flannery seems to be based on exactly this kind of editorial determination. Thus, I guess I'd argue for a broader standard of relevancy, in which both Flannery and IJV could be considered relevant, on their own merits, and whether or not the term "NAS" is explicitly invoked. Indeed, I think this is consistent with the aim of this article to discuss the NAS concept (including theory and phenomenon) rather than simply the term, an aim which then requires some editorial consideration. ] 07:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

==Mediation?==

May I request an update on the status of our mediation process? I think it may be time to move to the next stage, notwithstanding that certain editors have chosen not to participate in the preliminary discussions. ] 01:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

:A bout of flu kept me in bed for four or five days, and I'm still recovering, though on my feet again. I'm now going through all the materials. --] (]) 12:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

== Defamatory Caricatures ==

] - '']'' (Israeli PM) series.]]
i'm interested in adding to the size of the defamatory caricatures (perhaps create a subsection for it) and introduce this one when the article is open for editing:


] 10:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

:These cartoons appear to be vicious and nasty attacks on Ariel Sharon. Their connection to antisemitism is not clear. I have seen many cartoons which depict political figures as monsters, regardless of their religion or ethnicity. ] 01:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

: Exactly. Do you have a reliable source that says that those cartoons are an example of "new asntisemitism"? // ]

::Donald Rumsfeld compared Hugo Chávez to Hitler and nobody talked about "anti-Venezuelanism". The US imposes a selective boycott on Cuba, but not on Saudi Arabia, whose human rights violations are far worse, and no one talks about "anti-Cubanism." Count me among those who are unclear that the Sharon cartoons are intrinsically antisemitic.--] 02:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

== "Progressive" Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism ==

Why is there no mention of Alvin H. Rosenfeld's essay on here? The publication of the essay by the AJC and the response to it is by far the most notable event in the debate on New anti-Semitism yet you wouldn't know anything about it reading this article. -- Lyberry

== The Term "Islamism" ==
It's clear that term term "Islamism" should be changed to "radical Islamism" or "militant Islamism" or some close variant thereof; as it stands now "Islamism" just simply isn't the correct term. Again, it's mostly radical/fringe Islamists that espouse beliefs thought to be part of the so-called "New antisemitism." One cannot lump the entire Islamic world (approx. 1.5 billion followers) in to one term -- it's the radical element of Islamists that are the "new antisemites," not ALL Muslims. Using such a broad term like "Islamism" implies ALL of Islam (the entirety of the Islamic world), and that is why I have a problem with this term. I cannot believe that glaring errors like this have sat in such closely watched article for so long -- this only shows that Misplaced Pages has a ''very long way to go'' before it can reach anything even remotely resembling 'NPOV.' I suggest that this be remedied ASAP. --] 05:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
:"Radical Islam" would be better than "radical Islamism", wouldn't it? "Islamism" is a term which is reasonable synonymous with "Radical Islam," and "Islamist" is a synonym for "follower of radical Islam," not for "Muslim". I'd suggest that "Islamism" ought to be avoided so much as possible, given that clearer, less inflammatory, terms are available. ] 06:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

== Brian Klug pullquote ==

Which is stronger:

{{rquote|left|'''''hen anti-Semitism is everywhere, it is nowhere. And when every anti-Zionist is an anti-Semite, we no longer know how to recognize the real thing--the concept of anti-Semitism loses its significance''''' &mdash; ] <ref>Klug, Brian. . '']'', posted January 15, 2004 (February 2, 2004 issue), accessed January 9, 2006.</ref> }}

{{rquote|right|'''''People of goodwill who support the Palestinians resent being falsely accused of being anti-Semites.''''' &mdash; ] <ref name=KlugCatalyst/>}}

or

















I say the quote on the left for the following reasons:
a) it covers more ground taking on both the anti-Zionism = anti-Semitism question as well as making the point that misusing the term anti-Semitism threatens to make it easier for real anti-Semitism.
b) Klug ends his essay in the Nation with the quote on the left - writers often conclude on their stronger point so this suggests that Klug himself thinks this is a strong quote.
c) on the other hand, the journal that published the essay from which the quote on the right comes used two other quotes as pullquotes over this one suggesting they didn't see it as particularly strong.
d) the quote on the right doesn't really make an argument, it just expresses a complaint wheras the quote on the left summarizes Klug's main point quite powerfully.

Looking at their contributions the two editors who have expressed a preference for the quote on the right both seem to disagree with Klug's arguments so I'd like to hear what people who agree with Klug or are neutral think. {{signed|Tira_Massu}}

:Don't come here assuming you know what anyone thinks, or that because someone has a POV you disagree with, they can't write and can't recognize good writing.

:I assume {{user|Tira Massu}} is the same person as {{user|Tira Masu}}, but you lost your password, as they often do. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 22:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
:I assume {{user|Tira Massu}} is also the same person as {{user|Baron de Montesquieu}}. Another password no doubt sadly lost. :'-( ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 23:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
It's a conflict of interest to have someone who disagrees with a writer decide which part of their argument should be highlighted, even if they have the best intentions as I'm sure you do. I'd like to hear the thoughts of people who either agree with Klug or are neutral. {{signed|Tira_Massu}}
::It's not a conflict of interest; it's called being a Wikipedian. If you don't know what that means, please find another website to assume bad faith on. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 00:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
:::I'm surprised that Jayjg didn't beat me to this: please remember ] and ]. --] 04:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

::::It's not a matter of good or bad faith; it's a matter of good or bad edition. The quote "When anti-Semitism is everywhere, it is nowhere. And when every anti-Zionist is an anti-Semite, we no longer know how to recognize the real thing--the concept of anti-Semitism loses its significance" is much more powerful and representative of the author's thougt than the timid Klug pullquote currently used in the article. I favor substituting the former for the latter, so that readers will grasp at first glance the extent and depth of Klug's convictions, which is what a pullquote is useful for in the first place. --] 02:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

== "Jewish symbols"? ==
Well, given that my last request for term clarification regarding "Islamism" was ignored, I'll try again...could someone please enlighten as what what the phrase "Jewish symbols" found in the opening sentence means? I tried to temporary patch this idiotic, vague, and useless phraseology but was immediately reverted by the article's babysitter/guard at the time. What gives? --] 03:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

:It refers, for example, to synagogues being burned, to the Star of David being portrayed intertwined with the swastika, to Jewish cemeteries being sprayed with graffiti, and so on. Why is that hard to understand? ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 04:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Look at ] for a typical example. ] 04:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

::The "New antisemitism" is not all PHYSICAL though is what I'm trying to say, much of it is more 'intellectual' theorizing -- this nebulous phrase implies actual physical desecration/destruction of physical and visible "Jewish symbols" like synagogues, cemeteries, etc., yet the "New antisemitism" is, according to this article, more 'intellectual' conspiracies rather than blowing up synagogues, as I've said. And what of the increased verbal and physical harassment of Jews in Europe, the Middle East, and elsewhere (is this symbolic fighting)? Conspiracy theorizing of powerful Jews behind the scenes (are these symbolic conspiracy theories)? Virulent criticism of Israel (anti-Zionism) and America (anti-Americanism), with Jews as the supreme "puppeteers" supposedly behind the scenes (symbolic global hegemony)? Anti-globalization and antisemitism (is this symbolic dislike of globalization, attributed to Jews)? Antisemitism due to supposed Jewish manipulation of financial markets (is this symbolic anti capitalism combined with Jew baiting)? Per the article header, these are all considered to be part of the new antisemitism, yet they aren't actual physical "attacks" on Jewish symbols as the vague phrase "Jewish symbols" seems to imply. Or are these non-physical but nevertheless supposedly antisemitic "attacks" also "symbols" or "symbolic" too? --] 04:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

:::Please read the sentence: "New antisemitism is the concept of an international resurgence of attacks on Jewish symbols, '''as well as the acceptance of antisemitic beliefs and their expression in public discourse''', coming from three political directions: the political left, far-right, and Islamism." That covers the attacks on symbols, physical and otherwise, and the conspiracy theories and other things you mentioned. The only point not covered are the physical assaults. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 04:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

::::], one of the people who denies that there is such a thing as a "new antisemitism," has acknowledged several physical assaults in recent years but denies that they are either "new antisemitism" or "old antisemitism":

:::::<i>He accepts that there is reason for the Jewish community to be concerned, citing the truck-bombing of two synagogues in Istanbul, an arson attack on an Orthodox Jewish school in Paris, the reappearance of anti-Semitic slogans during demonstrations opposing the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and the increase in conspiracy theories involving Jews.</i>

::::There have been many other physical manifestations of anti-Jewish or anti-Israeli sentiment in recent years, such as vandalism of Jewish cemeteries. This is not mere rhetoric. ] 19:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

== The "New antisemitism" in South Korea? -- ''New York Times'' Article ==
LOS ANGELES (AP) -- Korean-American community leaders said they plan to launch a protest against the publisher of a popular South Korean comic book that contains anti-Semitic images.

One comic strip in the book shows a man climbing a hill and then facing a brick wall with a Star of David and "STOP" sign in front. "The final obstacle to success is always a fortress called Jews," a translation says.

Another strip shows a newspaper, magazine, TV and radio with the description: "In a word, American public debate belongs to the Jews, and it's no exaggeration to say that U.S. media are the voice of the Jews."

...article continued...

*

--] 03:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

:More ---> -- -- --] 01:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

:: Sounds like old antisemitism to me. // ]

== The Yale survey ==

The description of the Yale survey about anti-Israel attitudes and antisemitism needs to be improved. On the one hand, relatively unimportant details are given, such as the breakdown by gender, age, etc.

On the other hand, one important conclusion is omitted: that the connection holds true only for 56% of EXTREME detractors of Israel, while ''MODERATE critics of the country are not antisemitic by a 3-to-1 ratio''. In my view, this is a figure that deserves to be cited.

Also, the description is misleading in that it links selected questions from both questionnaires in the survey; and the selection is disingenuous (only the most extreme questions are quoted).

The survey is, thus, slightly misrepresented here. I'm fixing it accordingly. --] 13:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

:It is the extreme views that are relevant, and the claim that criticism of Israel is antisemitic is a ] that ''both'' sides deny. It obviously doesn't belong. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 02:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

::Jay, I wish you would stop characterizing the one side of the debate as nothing more than fighting straw men. A huge question in this issue is "Where does criticism of Israel become antisemitic." Please see the entire section on the Klug-Wistrich correspondence, for instance, particularly the first sentence:

:::''In correspondence with Klug, Robert Wistrich, Neuburger Professor of European and Jewish history at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and director of its International Center for the Study of Antisemitism — who also testified in February 2006 to the British parliamentary inquiry — responds that his own litmus test of when criticism of Israel becomes antisemitism is when the critic wishes to dismantle the Jewish state without calling for the dismantling of other states; demonizes Israel; brands it "Nazi" or "racist"; or relies on classic antisemitic stereotypes: for example, the "Jewish Lobby."''

::So demonization of Israel, what exactly does that mean? Does speaking of Israeli apartheid count? Or calling for the dismantling of the Jewish state, even, what does that mean? Does it include advocates of a binational state, for instance? Please check out the rest of the section for much more of the same. "What we have seen in recent years is indeed a new form of anti-Semitism operating under a humanist façade which (falsely) pillories Israel and Jews as being inherently 'racist'." Etc. This is not a straw man, to say "Ok, but ''fair'' criticism of Israel is still fair." More important, though, is the simple fact that these bodies do not see the clarification as addressing straw men, since they keep on making it. If there is a straw man argument here, I'd suggest it is indeed your suggestion, that opponents of NAS ''accuse'' Wistrich et al of calling any criticism of Israel antisemitic. To the same extent Wistrich et al don't make that argument, the fact is that nobody accuses them of making that argument either. What NAS opponents argue is that Wistrich et al conflate the issues in a manner which stifles fair debate. Not ''all'' debate, but some amount of reasonable and fair debate. It's still an important argument. But again, when the sources keep acknowledging it, it's simply not for us to cherry-pick their statements and leave that out. ] 05:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

:::I think the concept that "NAS proponents don't claim that criticism of Israel is itself antisemitic" is being used disingenuously. Of course, NAS proponents believe that saying that Israel is too soft on terrorists is legitimate criticism, but that's not what Kaplan and Small are talking about.

:::Kaplan and Small prove, by way of statistical survey, that many people who believe either that (a) Israel intentionally targets civilians or that (b) Palestinian terrorism is justified or that (c) Israel is responsible for the conflict or that (d) Israel is committing apartheid are not antisemitic. In fact, a large majority (65% to 35%) of people who believe THREE of these propositions to be true are not antisemitic, and only those who believe ALL FOUR propositions to be true (who constitute less than 1% of those surveyed) are antisemitic by a 56% to 44% majority.

:::Now NAS proponents do not claim that ANY of the four propositions is legitimate criticism of Israel. '''It's not true that both sides agree that a person can claim that Israel is an apartheid state and still not be antisemitic. NAS proponents claim that these people are antisemitic, and Kaplan and Small prove they're not necessarily so.'''

:::So we must quote Kaplan and Small's conclusions because they're talking of a type of criticism of Israel that is not considered legitimate by "the other side." --] 19:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

::::We need to be cautious about accepting surveys at face value. People are well aware that undisguised expressions of antisemitism are not acceptable in today's society. Even in a confidential survey, they may not admit that they harbor such feelings. But opposing Israeli government policy is socially acceptable. In some circles, it's very vogue. And it may be used as a socially acceptable camouflage for genuine antisemitic beliefs. ] 19:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

== Political term ==

This is clearly a political term. It doesn't just mean "any recent anti-semitism". As the article says:

:"The term has entered common usage to refer to what some writers describe as a wave of antisemitism that escalated, particularly in Western Europe, after the Second Intifada in 2000, the failure of the Oslo accords, and the September 11, 2001 attacks. The concept is used to distinguish this wave from classical antisemitism, which was largely associated with the political right."

&mdash;] 22:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
:Can you provide some ] which states that "New antisemitism" is a "pejorative political term", per policy? Thanks. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 22:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
::That's not necessary, it's clearly a term with a defined political meaning. &mdash;] 22:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

:::You can't extend that to calling it a "pejorative political term" -that's OR. ] 22:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

::::So you would say that it's a political term, but not pejorative? &mdash;] 22:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::It's a concept, and a description of a phenomenon. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 22:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
::::::And yet the term specifically describes a particular alleged "wave of antisemitism", according to the article, and not just any recent anti-Semitism. That makes it a political term, surely? Armon seemed to imply that he didn't disagree with that. &mdash;] 22:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Um, if you describe a wave of antisemitism, that's suddenly a political term? Anyway, contrary to your claim, you need ] which state "New antisemitism" is a "pejorative political term". ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 23:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

::::::::If you give it a particular name to identify it, then rather obviously yes. That's why it's called a "term" in the article. Here's a little test that should make it clear: would it be appropriate to rename the article "Antisemitism in the 21st century" or "Post-Second Intifada antisemitism" or "Post-Oslo antisemitism" or anything else you felt was a description? Clearly no, because those are not the terms being used. It's specifically the political term "new antisemitism". &mdash;] 23:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::Please familiarize yourself with ]; it's one of Misplaced Pages's two fundamental content policies. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 23:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::One doesn't need attribution for the obvious. &mdash;] 23:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::All controversial claims need ], particularly bogus ones like this one. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 00:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::Needed or not, attribution abounds. This should be enough, and there's more where that came from. Ashley's accurate edit goes in.--] 00:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::::And, of course, out it goes again. Please review ]. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 00:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Is ''antisemitism'' a pejorative? ] <sup>]</sup> 00:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

:Do any of the provided sources (or anyone) that refer to something as "new antisemitism" ''not'' mean it pejoratively? &mdash;] 00:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

::Anything which someone feels is inaccurately applied can be viewed a "pejorative". This doesn't automatically make the term a pejorative. Controversy about whether it truly exists, that it's actually "old" antisemitism, or "just" anti-Zionism, is irrelavant. ] 00:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

:::Ah, I see the problem. "]" does not imply "inaccurate", only disapproval. I think you'll agree that those referring to some phenomenon as "new antisemitism" are disapproving of that phenomenon? &mdash;] 00:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
::::Actually the problem is that you must abide by ]. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 00:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
::Also, please review ]. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 00:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

:::One doesn't need attribution for the obvious. &mdash;] 00:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
::::'''Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material.''' It's right at the top of the policy. I keep asking you to read it. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 00:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::But you seem to have stopped actually challenging it? Instead you are arguing "It needs attribution because I challenge it, and I challenge it because it needs attribution". &mdash;] 00:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::What on earth are you going on about? I've challenged it from the start, as have others. The category is not applicable to "New antisemitism". ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 00:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

:::::::"New antisemitism" is clearly both a political term (since it is an established identifying name for one particular phenomenon), and pejorative, as I pointed out. So the category is indeed applicable. &mdash;] 00:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::::You need to learn the difference between an assertion and an attribution. I know the words are superficially similar, but they mean very different things. Obviously people disagree with your claim, so ], per policy. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 01:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Ashley's edit has been sourced. What is all this nonsense about WP:ATT? And Slim, on what grounds have you again deleted the category?--] 01:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Nonsense. Which source described New antisemitism as a "pejorative political term"? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 01:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
::::Which source used that exact phrase? None that I know of. Is that where you're setting the bar? Are all/any of the items in that list cited to sources using that exact phrase? --] 01:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::Not only did none of the sources use that exact phrase, but none of the sources provided said anything close to it. As for the other items in the category, I have no doubt they're poorly sourced and inherently POV as well. That's exactly why the ] article was ], though you did your best to try to keep it, and somehow insist antisemitism was a political epithet. Then your buddy Liftarn tried to get it in via the backdoor, only to have ]. Now you're taking a ] third kick at this can via a silly category. At this point you appear to be editing solely for this purpose, and I don't plan to put up with much more of this. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 02:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::Two editors who agree on one point and never at any other time so much as cross paths aren't "buddies," Jay. Please review my input to ] at a more sober and less paranoid moment. Maybe you need to take a little break.--] 02:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Please review ] and ]. Perhaps you should go back on the break you were taking, you seem to be here ]. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 02:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::::Your accusations are unhelpful, as are your repeated mentioning of policies we are already familiar and in compliance with. &mdash;] 02:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::::Indeed. It really does poison the groundwater here, Jay. Try to exercise some restraint.--] 02:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::If you were actually familiar with ], then you wouldn't insist that you can insert controversial claims without attribution. If you were familiar with ], then you wouldn't assert that other editors needed to be "more sober and less paranoid", or needed to "try to exercise some restraint". In order to comply with ], I must assume that you are not familiar with ] and ], rather than other, less savory, conclusions. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
:I find it surprising that ''new antisemitism'' would be pejorative, but not ''antisemitism''. That seems unreasonable to me. Is it because it applies to the left and Muslims instead of to the right and Christians? ] <sup>]</sup> 00:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
::No, it's because "antisemitism" has been a part of the language for a hundred and fifty years or so, whereas "new antisemitism" is a recent coinage. "Antisemite" can indeed be used as an epithet, but there's a pretty stable consensus about the meaning of the word "antisemitism" and the phenomenon it names. "New antisemitism" has been used almost entirely within the context of contentious political debate about Israel's human-rights record, so the term is polarizing and doesn't enjoy widespread legitimacy; whereas "antisemitism"'s legitimacy has been codified and stabilized by extensive use that transcends this or that historical moment or political debate.--] 01:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
:I have not seen ''new antisemitism'' used as a pejorative, yet people want to list it. I don't see ''neocon'' listed as a pejorative political term, yet I have often seen ''neocon'' used as a pejorative. The whole category looks arbitrary to me. What is the criteria for inclusion? ] <sup>]</sup> 02:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
OK Slim, discuss. Why are you removing a sourced category link?--] 01:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
:Because there is no reliable source that describes it as a "pejorative political term". Please review ]. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 01:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
::Stop telling experienced editors to review basic protocol, Jay. It's insulting, and it wastes everyone's time.--] 02:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
::And here you are again arguing "it needs attribution because I challenge it, and I challenge it because it needs attribution". In fact, it's completely obvious that it's both a political term and pejorative, and you don't seem to be actually offering any arguments against that. &mdash;] 01:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Nonsense. It's not a pejorative political term, it's a description of modern phenomena. The "pejorative political term" claim has been challenged by many editors, the "sources" brought do not even claim that it is a "pejorative political term", and you need to observe ], rather than repeating yourself. Instead of endless repetitive assertions, '''source your false claim and original research, per policy'''. I don't think I can be any clearer. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 01:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
::::Jay, are you insisting upon a source who uses that exact phrase, "pejorative political epithet"? And when someone returns successfully from that pointless scavenger-hunt, will you move then move the goalpost, raise the bar?--] 02:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::No, I'm insisting you stop ] Misplaced Pages, and start following policy. This is the third time, in a third way, that you and your POV-buddies have attempted to insist that "antisemite" is a political epithet, and we're getting tired of it. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 02:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::Jayjg, please don't make ]. They add nothing to the discussion but merely lose you credibility. &mdash;] 02:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::Please re-read both ] and ]. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 02:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::::You really are getting very nasty here, Jay. Do stop sending experienced editors back to basic protocol. Do stop pretending editors who've never so much as crossed paths before are "buddies," especially when you have been team-edit-warring for years now, as every single person on this page knows very well. And do stop stubbornly pretending that scrupulously cited sources don't say what they obviously do say, in the plainest of English.--] 02:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::You brought one source that didn't even use the term "pejorative". You and Liftarn worked together to insert "Antisemite" into the "List of political epithets". Ashley Y keeps insisting that he can insert controversial claims and ignore ], because "it's obvious", and you, because it's "common sense". All of you still need to review ]. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::The "controversy" here is apparently manufactured, since you're not actually making any arguments against it besides the circular one, as I have repeatedly pointed out. &mdash;] 03:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
::::It's not merely a description, as both G-Dett and I have pointed out, since it refers specifically to the alleged "wave of antisemitism that escalated, particularly in Western Europe, after the Second Intifada in 2000". (And yes, there are plenty of sources that use it as a term rather than a description.) But you refuse to discuss that. Instead, you endlessly repeat your argument that it needs attribution because it is challenged, circularly since it is only challenged on the basis that it needs attribution.

::::If you have a challenge to the categorisation that doesn't depend on a need for attribution on the basis that is challenged, I'd like to hear it. Otherwise ] simply doesn't apply. &mdash;] 02:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::] always applies. It's fundamental policy. You can't do away with it by claiming "it's obvious". Stop repeating yourself, abide by policy instead. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 02:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::] refers to material that is challenged, as you quoted. I don't think that includes material that is challenged solely for not being attributed. I keep raising this point precisely because you keep mentioning the policy. If you'd like to move forward from here, it's up to you. &mdash;] 02:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ashley Y, New antisemitism is clearly a sociological phenomenon, not a 'pejorative political term'. If you want to claim it is the latter, you need to provide proper ] from ] that back up your view. That's ], you can't get around it. --] | ] 02:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

:It may very well be a sociological phenomenon, but its status as a political term doesn't negate that. There are plenty of sources that use it as a political term. &mdash;] 02:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
:It is not challenged because it needs attribution, rather attribution is the only method of proving that the assertion that it is indeed a pejorative political term isn't merely your original research. On what basis should we accept it? <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 02:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
::Well, are you doubting that it is a political term, or doubting that it is pejorative? &mdash;] 02:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Sorry, you can't reverse the onus of proof. ] is quite clear. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 02:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
::::Tewfik, are you doubting that it is a political term, or doubting that it is pejorative? &mdash;] 03:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
::On the basis of common sense, Tewfik. And failing that, the reliable sources provided. As well as others, if you wish.--] 02:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
:::However, none has yet been provided for the claim that it is a "pejorative political term", neither common sense, nor reliable sources. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 02:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
::::It's common sense, as we've pointed out. &mdash;] 03:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::I've already explained that assertion and attribution are similar words, but they mean very different things. ] does not say "please ignore this policy if editors continually insist their controversial claims are 'common sense'. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::Likewise it does not say "common sense needs to be attributed, even if editors continually insist that it is controversial without providing any argument". &mdash;] 03:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::::] ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

::::::::True, but there's no challenge here apart from the circular one that it is challenged because it needs attribution, and it needs attribution because it is challenged (as I have repeatedly pointed out). &mdash;] 03:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::] The policy is written that way for a reason; otherwise people who insist on inserting their own ] come along and say "yeah, but in this case it's common sense, and you haven't come up with any good arguments (i.e. arguments that I accept) to keep it out". ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

::::::::::Ashley, Jayjg's right, you are clearly shifting the burden of proof. ] 03:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

PinchasC, NAS is "clearly a sociological phenomenon" to some reliable sources, and clearly a political ploy to others. It's not for Misplaced Pages editors to declare one side of this debate a winner.--] 02:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
:G-Dett, which ] say that it is a pejorative political term? --] | ] 03:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
::This has gone beyond ridiculous. Just provide a RS cite which states that it is a pejorative political term! If one can't be produced, then the proponents of the cat need to drop it. ] 03:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

:::Agree with above. Unless a source is provided, this is OR and against Misplaced Pages guidelines. ] 03:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

::::A quick scan and I count thirteen links to ]. This has to be some sort of record. ] 03:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::It must be; and yet I fear even more will be required. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::Just out of curiosity, why do you keep replying to this joker? It's obvious that you win. ] 03:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

:::::To say that it's a pejorative political term is to imply that it's merely an insult and lacks other content. Even many of its opponents wouldn't agree with this. They argue that the term may be misused and may be applied too broadly; or they argue that, though it correctly describes a new form of prejudice, it's not antisemitism. But I haven't seen any authoritative source argue that it's only and always an insult. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 03:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

== Sources which clearly state that "New antisemitism" is a "pejorative political epithet" ==

Please place any ] which clearly state that "New antisemitism" is a "pejorative political epithet" here, quoting the words of the source that make that specific claim. Thanks. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

===Sources===
#]. , ''The Observer'', June 22, 2003.
#:Quote him describing "New antisemitism" as a "Pejorative political epithet" please. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
#Arenson, David & Grynberg, Simon. .
#:Quote them describing "New antisemitism" as a "Pejorative political epithet" please. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
#]. , ], September 25, 2006.
#:Reliable sources, please, not polemicists on propaganda sites. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
#Curthoys, Ned. "A new anti-Semitism: American discourse since September 11 has seen a reinvention of the eternal anti-semitism thesis applied to critics of Israel," ''Arena Magazine'', April 1, 2004.
#:Quote him describing "New antisemitism" as a "Pejorative political epithet" please. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
#Gordon, Neve. "Seeing through the 'new anti-Semitism': Norman Finkelstein critiques Israel's human rights record and Alan Dershowitz's defense of it," ''National Catholic Reporter'', October 14, 2005.
#:Quote him describing "New antisemitism" as a "Pejorative political epithet" please, and try to find less polemical sources. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
#Iganski, Paul & Kosmin, Barry. (eds) ''A New Antisemitism? Debating Judeophobia in 21st Century Britain'', Profile Books Limited, 2003. ISBN 1-86197-651-8
#:Quote them describing "New antisemitism" as a "Pejorative political epithet" please. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
#:(more available on request) &mdash;] 03:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
#::Any reliable ones that actually describe "New antisemitism" as a "pejorative political epithet"? Those would be most helpful, if you can find them. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
#
#
#

===Comments===
This is the wrong bar. There are plenty of sources that actually use "new antisemitism" as a pejorative political epithet. &mdash;] 03:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:52, 23 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the New antisemitism article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Former good article nomineeNew antisemitism was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 24, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 25, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconJewish history Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconDiscrimination Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconIsrael Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconJudaism Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconGlobalization Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Globalization, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Globalization on Misplaced Pages.
If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.GlobalizationWikipedia:WikiProject GlobalizationTemplate:WikiProject GlobalizationGlobalization
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPolitics Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Antisemitism was copied or moved into New antisemitism with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
Shortcut
Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:

  • You must be logged-in to an extended confirmed account (granted automatically to accounts with 500 edits and an age of 30 days)
  • You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered.


Evaluating authors

I don't know quite where this belongs, but there are factions in the American political landscape who are pro-Isreal but antisemitic. That has become increasingly clear since 2016.

In general writing intelligently about claims of new Antisemitism requires look at several factors, e.g.,

  1. Does the author investigate adverse claims or just take them as true
  2. Does the author apply the same standards as used for other countries
  3. Does the author distinguish among, e.g., Israel, Israeli citizens, Jews?
  4. Does the author put events in context?

Discussing any of these potentially runs afoul of WP:SYNTHESIS. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:35, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

"pro-Isreal but antisemitic" I do not see much of a contradiction here. Supporting Israel for political reasons does not equate to supporting Jews or supporting the rights of Jewish minorities in various countries. In the last few years, I have encountered Greek far right voters who support an alliance with Israel (against Turkey), but have no problem blaming Jews for every social or economic problem faced by the entire world. Dimadick (talk) 23:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
You two need to read these articles:
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/terra-incongnita-everyone-i-hate-is-hitler-dangerous-politicization-of-antisemitism-473188
https://www.commentary.org/articles/robert-wistrich/the-new-war-against-the-jews/
https://www.jpost.com/blogs/the-warped-mirror/from-al-jazeera-to-columbia-university-joseph-massads-obsession-with-israel-364634
https://brandeiscenter.com/ali-abunimahs-orwellian-definition-of-anti-semitism/
The idea that "there are factions in the American political landscape who are pro-Isreal but antisemitic" doesn't hold ground, let alone "has become increasingly clear since 2016". Your anecdote doesn't prove otherwise. Wake up! 69.113.233.201 (talk) 01:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Time Magazine cover story

The words "The New Antisemitism" appear in large letters on the cover of the March 11, 2024 issue of Time Magazine... AnonMoos (talk) 15:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Lede

One of the two key citations for "critics" is the David Hirsh piece that repeatedly refers to the use of antisemitism accusations as a weapon. As such I would suggest it's not controversial to mention "weaponization" in the lede. That's what the RS says. Simonm223 (talk) 18:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I think perhaps a better balance can be struck by making it more explicit this is a belief rather than a “concept” (as the lede currently states, and unduly reifies it) Yr Enw (talk) 05:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Changing wording

As the opening of the article implicitly describes the existence of new antisemitism is factual while in reality its existence is highly debated, maybe the wording should be changed to clarify that it's a proposed idea that may or may not be factual? Blepii (talk) 02:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I think there's more dispute over the interpretations of the facts than about the actual facts. No informed person of goodwill would deny that some people on the political left hate Jews, but then there are endless No true Scotsman debates about whether hatred of Jews is "baked in" to certain representative and characteristic forms of leftist doctrine, or whether those forms of leftism must be excluded from the definition of "true" valid leftism, or whether it's a mere personalistic aberration of certain individuals etc. etc. ad nauseam... AnonMoos (talk) 19:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
@AnonMoos The rest of the article still contains plenty of criticism of the concept, it's only the opening sentence that's changed to something that, in my view, has no consensus from reliable sources. The previous opening sentence to me seemed perfectly neutral and factual and the new one just seems like an effort at pushing WP:POV. 22090912l (talk) 17:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
I think that this issue still deserves more discussion, and I would encourage @Blepii, @AnonMoos and any other interested editor to participate. 22090912l (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
I have made a suggestion above that the word "belief" might be more appropriate in the lede, to reflect this. Yr Enw (talk) 19:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 October 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The following line need to be removed or reworded as it is highly subjective.

, typically manifesting itself as anti-Zionism. 47.14.91.4 (talk) 00:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

it seems ok to me. why do you object to it? Rainsage (talk) 06:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
This is a tough one. The source doesn't actually talk about "new antisemitism" or describe it as anti-Zionist. Instead, it's referring to its own concept of "new anti-Zionist antisemitism", and it's unclear whether this is the same thing. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done Marking edit request as completed due to no consensus. -OXYLYPSE (talk) 10:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. Fastenbauer, Raimund (2020). "Islamic Antisemitism: Jews in the Qur'an, Reflections of European Antisemitism, Political Anti-Zionism: Common Codes and Differences". In Lange, Armin; Mayerhofer, Kerstin; Porat, Dina; Schiffman, Lawrence H. (eds.). An End to Antisemitism! – Volume 2: Confronting Antisemitism from the Perspectives of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter. pp. 279–300. doi:10.1515/9783110671773-018. ISBN 9783110671773.
Categories: