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 20:08, 7 September 2006 editCJCurrie (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators74,734 edits →British report← Previous edit Latest revision as of 19:52, 23 December 2024 edit undoYr Enw (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,249 edits →Changing wording: ReplyTag: Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talkheader}} {{Talk header}}
{{controversial}} {{controversial}}
{{Article history
|action1= FAC
|action1date= 16:55 24 December 2006
|action1link= Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/New antisemitism/archive1
|action1result= failed


|action2= GAN
{| cellpadding=3 cellspacing=0 style="float:right;text-align:center; border:solid 1px black; background:rgb(230,245,230);margin=5"
|action2date= 2007-03-25
| align=center|]
|action2link= Talk:New antisemitism
|-
|action2result= failed
| ]
|action2oldid= 117667255
|
|}


|currentstatus= FGAN
==Length==
}}
The article is getting long, so it might be a good idea to discuss which sections we might be able to remove. Do people have any ideas about that? ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 05:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
{{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 ==
: My first option would be to remove the sections that aren't about NAS. // ]
::And they are? ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 07:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


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.
::: Old anti-Semitism and muslim anti-Semitism. // ]


In general writing intelligently about claims of new Antisemitism requires look at several factors, e.g.,
::::Do you mean the section called "The far right and Islamism?" If so, that's impossible. Please be serious. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 08:21, 31 August 2006 (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)
No, I don't suggest we should move an entire section, but trim (and possibly move) parts that are not about NAS. // ]
::You two need to read these articles:
:::Which parts of that section do you think are not about NAS? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 22:28, 31 August 2006 (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 ==
:We could move everything that is strictly anti-Zionist (like the David Duke speech) to the Anti-Zionism article. As a Jew who is against Zionism, I hate the idea of people associating me with Zionists. Anti-Semitism is an irrational hatred of a particular bloodline. Anti-Zionism is an understandable hatred of people who employ usury, political manipulation, redefinition of language and antisocial business practices to enslave those outside of their tiny group. ''Jews'' and ''Zionists'' are not the same thing. --] 14:31, 31 August 2006 (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)
::Quoting Xosa -- "Anti-Zionism is an understandable hatred of people who employ usury, political manipulation, redefinition of language and antisocial business practices to enslave those outside of their tiny group." This is the language of classic and shameful anti-semitism, a precise example of the phenomenon the article discusses. ] 18:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


== Lede ==
:::Whether or not the language is shameful, it isn't aimed at Semites, so how could it be "anti-Semitism?" I certainly wasn't talking about myself. I've never employed usury, political manipulation, redefinition of language or antisocial business practices in my life, yet I'm a Semite. That's my whole point, and one of the points of David Duke: Jews don't do these things as a rule. We are good, hard-working people who give to greater society as much as we take. Saying that everyone who opposes Zionism also opposes Jews is incorrect and defamatory. --] 00:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
::::Folks while it might be a bit understandable to talk about these issue ''generally'', Misplaced Pages talk pages are not here to serve such a purpose. I would kindly request that the discussion remain specific about article content and editing. Thanks. ''(]])'' 00:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
::::Who was it aimed at then, and who is practicing "usury"? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 00:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
:::::Zionists practice usury. I think they call it "banking." But Netscott is right; as this relates to the article, I think several things can be taken out or moved to the anti-Zionism page. For instance, David Duke specifically says that he isn't talking about Jews; his arguments are directed only toward Zionists. I don't think something like that could be any more clear. --] 00:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
::::::Zionists practice usury? Huh? Is it only Zionists? Do Zionists practice usury more than other, um, "peoples"? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 01:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Is that a rhetorical question, or would you really like to know? --] 17:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Don't feed the trolls, Jay. ] 03:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
::::::::Yeah, that's what I thought. --] 17:53, 1 September 2006 (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)
==Trying again==
It would be good if we could discuss this seriously. There's some material it would be nice to add at some point e.g. a debate between Brian Klug and Robert Wistrich, but the article is currently so long I hesitate to add anything. I would like to get rid of (1) the ritual slaughter section, which I feel is weak and arguable; (2) the media and cartoons section, which I also feel is weak as written; and (3) the other commentators section (they should either be incorporated into the text or not mentioned, in my view, and the ones I feel don't need to be mentioned are Natan Sharansky and Michael Neumann. Any thoughts? ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 03:52, 1 September 2006 (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 have given up editing this article, but I agree with your proposed changes. 1) agree completely 2)agree. Being Norwegian, I feel that the short remarks about "norwegian media" are more likely to create confusion than anything else. The facts are (almost) correct, but the complete lack of context only makes it weird. I think the whole Media-section could be removed. 3) I am not sure about how to handle this. I feel the critizism of the concept is now mainly linked to radical characters like finkelstein and chomsky in the article as it is now. ] 08:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


== Changing wording ==
::Thanks, Pertn. We do have criticism from non-radical commentators too (for the want of a better expression) e.g. Brian Klug and Steven Zipperstein. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 09:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


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)
:::The most obvious candidate for removal is the section on ritual slaughter: "Since the 1930s, Norway, Denmark, and Sweden have banned shechitaThe Swiss banned kosher slaughter in 1902 The bans are seen by some commentators as part of a "new wave of ugly, and sometimes violent, anti-Semitism sweep through the European continent."
:::Beside the other two sections listed by SlimVirgin, I would also take a look at Academia. Not that it should be removed, but it could be made shorter ("anti-Zionist graffiti appeared on the sidewalk"). --] 00:38, 2 September 2006 (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 ] 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)
Slim, I think your suggestion is reasonable. Probably we can move the discussion of whether the banning of ritual slaughter is anti-Semitic to the article on ritual slaughter (if it isn't already well covered there). The core of the NAS thesis is that anti-Semitism masks as anti-Zionism and that anti-Zionism encourages anti-Semitism: given that, it seems quite a stretch to discuss bans on ritual slaughter in this article. - ] | ] 23:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
::@] 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)
::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 ==
The point is not whether opposing ritual slaughter is anti-Semitic but whether it's seen to be so and parituclarly whether it's seen to be part of a "new wave" of anti-Semitism. Clearly, from the sources provided in the section, it is. As Jayjg said earlier:
: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)


{{edit extended-protected|New antisemitism|answered=yes}}
As I recall, several of the books on New Anti-Semitism refer to the anti-ritual slaughter campaign in Europe. If experts on New anti-Semitism cite the bans on kosher slaughter we would be remiss not to do so in this article. ] 00:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
The following line need to be removed or reworded as it is highly subjective.


, 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)
:Could you say which books? ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 00:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


::I'll try to get to the library on Thursday. ] 21:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC) :it seems ok to me. why do you object to it? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 02:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)


{{notdone}} Marking edit request as completed due to no consensus. -] (]) 10:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
==Copy edit==
I'm going to go through this at some point, maybe today, and try to tighten up the writing in order to shorten the length. I'll be looking out for repetition, any laboring of points, that kind of thing. I may also try to weave the Chomsky/Finkelstein arguments at the end into the main text, and if I do, I want to remove the critics/proponents section entirely.


{{reflist-talk}}
If I remove something you disagree with, please bear with me rather than reverting, because I may end up reinserting it elsewhere.

I'll put the copy edit tag up so you'll know when I've started and finished. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 00:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

:I've tidied it a little; between this and the copy edit a few days ago, it's 24 kilobytes shorter. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 08:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
::Good work! ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 17:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

==Meme?==
This sentence's got to go:
"The meme of a Zionist mastermind controlling the world's economy has been apparent during anti-globalization protests."
The "meme" is a highly controversial concept scientifically. Also the use of the term "meme" implies the POV opinion that such ideas are "replicated". Thus the sentence reinforces the idea of a new virus-like spread of ideas amongst the anti-globalists. It is not referenced. In general, one should beware of the idea of a meme because it is a quite weak scientific concept, but even more because it is easy to use to stereotype the ideas of your opponents.] 11:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
:How about "persistent anti-Semitic motif"? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 17:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
::much better ] 19:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
:::I don't mind which we say, but there's nothing wrong with "meme." It's not a scientific concept. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 01:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

== Left-bashing ==

We've been through this before, but I see that the current version has, in the lead paragraph "held to be associated with certain left-wing political views." I wouldn't have any problem even with "held to be ''sometimes'' associated with certain left-wing political views," (emphasis just to point out the edit, I'm not asking for italics in the article) but the statement as it stands suggests that "New" anti-Semitism is supposed to be strictly a phenomenon of the Left. Clearly this is not the case. Many of the cited Arab examples are not particularly "Left"; ] is about as far from Left as you can get. - ] | ] 20:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
:Right-wing anti-semitism wouldn't be new though, would it? ] <sup>]</sup> 22:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
::I think that's the point, which is also made in the lead; "classic" anti-Semitism has typically come from right-wing or fundamentalist religious sources. According to the sources, one of the main things that is "New" about New anti-Semitism is that it also comes from the left, which has traditionally opposed anti-Semitism. The other new thing about it is the odd alliance of unlikely bedfellows; the far left aligning with far rightists (like Duke) and fundamentalist Muslims. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 01:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
::If you took the left out of new anti-Semitism, there'd be nothing new about it. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 01:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

:::If we are to include David Duke in the article, then "sometimes associated with certain left-wing political views" would be more appropriate. ] 01:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

::::The problem is that it's more than sometimes. The presence of the left is both a necessary and a sufficient condition. The Islamists and David Dukes could become Judeophiles tomorrow, but if the left continued, we'd still have new anti-Semitism. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 02:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

:::::In the first place, you should be aware by now that the premise of a "new anti-Semitism" is not agreed upon by all parties. Please don't assume the reality of the concept when discussing usage of the term.

::::::Regardless of whether it refers to anything in the world, we can still say what the concept is. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 02:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

:::::Second, if NAS-proponents interpret an alliance between David Duke and radical Islam as a credibile manifestation of the concept, then the presence of the left is plainly ''not'' a necessary condition. ] 02:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

::::::They don't. Were it only the far right and Islamists, a new concept would likely not have developed. Of course, we'll never know. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 02:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
::::::Regarding your first point, there is almost nothing that is "agreed upon by all parties", including anti-Semitism itself; for the purposes of this page, it's reasonable enough to discuss the phenomenon in the way the various reliable sources discuss it. Regarding your second point, on top of SlimVirgin's cogent point, alliances between Nazis and Islam are not entirely new; see, for example, ]. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 02:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Btw, whatever happened to the revised introduction we were working on a while ago? ] 02:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

:It wasn't quite right. We need to find wording that gives due emphasis, or else that quotes one of the main thinkers. I'd prefer the latter, but you didn't like the idea of quoting someone. I think the kaleidoscope quote sums it up, for example. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 02:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

::It's odd that you ]. The revised version may not be perfect, but it's still much better than the current wording.

::Could I suggest putting the revised version into place now, and making further adjustments if and as required? (For what's it's worth, I'd be willing to accept the "kaleidoscope" quote now if we make it clear that this represents only one interpretation of the term.) ] 02:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

:::Okay. Let me tweak it around a little. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 18:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

*Here's ]. Is there any reason why we can't substitute this for the current version? ] 02:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

:::There is an obvious assumption here, when anyone uses the word anti-semitic, everyone knows it reffers to hatred towards jews and most left-wing groups have nothing against jews, but against Israel. {{unsigned|201.215.169.199}}
::::Big assumption. Who says that the left wing is immunized from bigotry? --] 17:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

::::Here's ] that CJCurrie and I have discussed. I'd personally like to see more emphasis on the left as they're the key to the concept of new anti-Semitism but this intro treats them as equal to the far right and Islamism. However, I can't see how to tweak it in that direction without going too far. Do any of the regular editors of the page object to this intro being inserted? ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 18:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

:::::I've gone ahead and inserted it. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 02:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

==McShane report==
I don't know, Ben. You pick out the absolute key aspect, for the purposes of this article and for that section in particular, of the newspaper article about the McShane report, namely the alleged left/Muslim alliance &mdash; ''and those are the very words you choose to delete''.

I wouldn't bother fiddling with it. The report itself will be released soon and then we'll have more material. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 07:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

:<s>SlimVirgin - you are acting based on prejudice.</s> SlimVirgin? The next sentence says far-left and Islamist and I didn't delete that one -- thus your claim above is just sort of strange. If you read the article, the use of criticism of Israel as pretext was mentioned in the context of the left and the boycott in particular. My summary is more accurate than what was there -- you converted a nuanced statement in the original source that some criticism was acceptable and that only sometimes was criticism used as a pretext to spreading anti-Semitism to a simple over-generalizing statement that the left and the Islamists use criticism of Israel as a pretext to spreading anti-Semitism. From my perspective you removed a whole lot in your version. --] 08:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

:I think it's important to retain the allegation that the left and Muslim extremists are using criticism of Israel as a pretext, which is one of the main topics of this article. Yet that's the part you've decided to remove. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 08:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

::In regards to your second statement: I didn't remove that criticism of Israel was used as a pretext -- check the edit history. You are behaving strangely. --] 08:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You removed the words "... accuses left-wing activists and Muslim extremists of using criticism of Israel as a "pretext" for spreading anti-Semitism." This is from the Observer. There is no need for you to change it. You are not the source.

I'm sick and tired of you accusing me of prejudice and of acting "emotionally" or "based on my feelings," which you've never explained, so I'm going to say this once and once only. Take careful note. I care ONLY that articles are well-written, sourced to intelligent sources, and informative. I don't actually care if the sources are left-wing, right-wing, no-wing, Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Hindu, none of the above. I would like editors to read serious sources, and then use them properly, quoting them carefully, attributing carefully, reflecting carefully what they say. That's what I try to do myself. I don't always succeed, but I do always try. '''Do not accuse me again of doing anything else.''' ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 08:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

:Your accusation about me removing that phrase is simple wrong -- you need to check the diff of my edit, which you can do here: . To be completely specific, I changed the phrase:
::"and accuses left-wing activists and Muslim extremists of using '''criticism of Israel as a 'pretext' for spreading anti-Semitism'''" (emphasis added)
:to this similar and more nuanced phrase:
::""The report, while it emphasized the right to criticize or protest against Israeli government actions, states that '''criticism of Israel sometimes 'provided a pretext' for spreading anti-Semitism'''" (emphasis added)
:Both versions mentioned criticism of Israel as providing a pretext for spreading anti-Semitism. The original source actually says this:
::"Though emphasising the right of people to criticise or protest against Israeli government actions, it says 'rage' over Israeli policies has sometimes 'provided a pretext' for anti-semitism." (Original)
:Check for yourself. I have inserted almost the exact sentence from the source into the article -- it may need quotes around it now though. From my perspective, you are accusing me of distorting the source because I quoted it more accurately. That does seem strange to me. --] 08:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

:::Ben, you removed the phrase '''left-wing activists and Muslim extremists''' from the article, which was, of course, the whole reason the article was referenced '''in the section about the left'''. The newspaper report itself states, in its very first sentence
::::''A group of prominent MPs, alarmed at the rise of anti-semitism in Britain, will accuse some '''left-wing activists and Muslim extremists''' this week of using criticism of Israel as 'a pretext' for spreading hatred against British Jews.''
:::Your change was not "similar and more nuanced"; rather, it was "POV pushing and whitewashing". To remove the phrase in the first place was bizarre enough; to then continually claim you had not removed it, goes beyond bizzare, into the realm of the absurd. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 16:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

::::Jayjg? You are accusing me of removing something I didn't remove -- please note clearly that I didn't modify the sentence in the summary that reads: "McShane described what he called a 'witch's brew' of anti-Semitism involving the far left and 'ultra-Islamist' extremists." Your claim that I, an in attempt at "POV and whitewashing", removed the connection between left-wing and Islamists from the summary is simple wrong and shows that you haven't even read the short summary of the article that we are discussing.
::::Why not actually talk about what the actual issue is instead of engaging in hysterics? I used a nuanced sentence within the article as the basis of my summary while you are proposing using simpler take on things that is used in the lead paragraph. That said, I still didn't remove either of the two core claims that you and SlimVirgin have just accused me of removing. --] 18:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

:::::. You removed the phrase '''left-wing activists and Muslim extremists'''. This, in fact, is the "core claim", the unusual alliance underlying New anti-Semitism. I can't be more clear than that. It's hard to know what to make of the rest of your comment, except that it would be helpful if you focussed on article content, and avoided hyperbolic language. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 18:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

::::::Jayjg: '''The summary mentioned it twice and I removed only a duplication while also adding more contextual information.''' The only way you your accusation of my "whitewashing and POV" makes sense is if you assume people stop reading half way through the summary. This set of false accusations is based on SlimVirgin's initial misreading of my change and your apparently blind support for her. The accusations have become nothing more than a charade. Your inability to understand my last comment shows that discussing this with you in particular is not useful. --] 18:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

:::::::We don't need you to "modify" what sources say; or to add your own "nuance." We need to quote or closely paraphrase the sources which is what I did. And anyway, as I've told you more than once, there're no point in editing this section because I'm going to rewrite it when the report becomes available, so you're wasting your time. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 00:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

::::::::Huh? I didn't modify what the source said, the nuance was in the original. I think this makes a prefect trifecta of false accusations -- that's an impressive accomplishment considering I only edited one sentence. Its pretty funny actually. To echo the recent words of ], there are clear ] issues with this article. --] 02:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::You removed something that the source had said and replaced it with your own words. Perhaps the problem is that you don't read the sources before editing. Whatever causes it, please don't do it again. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 03:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

::::::::::Your ''authoritatively worded statement'' that I "removed something that the source had said and replaced it with own words" is almost a lie, the question is are you intentionally telling a mistruth or are you confused and unable to consider alternatives. --] 03:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::::Ben, whenever you edit the article or post on talk, it turns into a long saga of claim and counter-claim. The sole aim here is to write an article that uses authoritative sources, and to write up what they say '''without adding any spin to it'''. Personal opinions about anti-Semitism, accusations on talk, and all the rest, have no place here, and I have no interest in them. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 03:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

::::::::::::You accuse me falsely of things that I didn't do. But I am also attacked for responding to these accusations. It is a funny situation which seems from my perspective to be designed to be unfair towards me. --] 13:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

::::::::::::Incident report filed here: ] --] 15:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
In the spirit of the above, writing an article without adding any spin, three points. One, what is the rationale for juxtaposing the establishment of this inquiry with the proposal for an academic boycott? There is no such reference on the inquiry's website, or on BBC news online this morning. Two, I do not think it is accurate to say that this inquiry was set up by Parliament. It was set up by a cross-party group of parliamentarians. That it has been taken very seriously by distinguished members of the British State and establishment is clear from the details about participation that have been included. Three, I do not think that the "witch's brew" commment by Mr McShane is in the report but was made in a Radio 4 programme last weekend. Oh, and I hope since you are not interested in personal opinions about anti-Semitism you will assume that this edit and any others I may make are offered in good faith, and not jump to conclusions as you and another admin did last month. ] 07:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

==Scholarly and government sources==
I thought it might be helpful to list the scholarly and government sources we use in this article, in response to a few editors who have turned up here without reading the article to complain that it isn't sourced. "Where are the sources?" one of them asked recently. Here they are. (In addition to the following, we use several well-known journalists and other writers. Full list ].) ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 09:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

We have 118 footnotes citing 76 separate sources.

Scholarly sources:
*Michael Barkun, professor of political science at ]
*] professor of Holocaust studies at the Avraham Harman Institute of Contemporary Jewry at the ].
*], professor of law at ].
*], professor emeritus of psychology and women's studies at the ].
*], professor of linguistics at the ].
*], professor of law at ].
*], Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, ].
*], William Haber Professor of Modern Jewish History at the ].
*], chair of history at ].
*], director of the Post-Holocaust and Anti-Semitism project, ].
*], professor of journalism and sociology at ].
*Brian Klug, senior research fellow in philosophy at ].
*], professor of political science at ].
*], William N. and Marie A. Beach Professor of Management Sciences at the ], Professor of Public Health at the ], and Professor of Engineering in the Yale Faculty of Engineering.
*], professor of Modern Jewish and Holocaust Studies at ].
*], professor of sociology at the ].
*], assistant professor of political science and administration of justice at the ]'s College of Wise,
*Earl Raab, director emeritus of the Nathan Perlmutter Institute for Jewish Advocacy, ].
*], former professor of English and comparative literature at ].
*], Director of Urban Studies at the ], and professor with the Institute for Social and Policy Studies at ].
*], former president of ].
*], philosopher and director of research at the ].
*], National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership.
*], Neuberger Professor of Modern History at the ] and head of its International Center for the Study of Anti-Semitism.
*Steven Zipperstein, professor of Jewish Culture and History at ].
*Laurie Zoloth, Director of Bioethics, and professor of Medical Ethics and Humanities, ].

Government reports/special inquiries:
*France: "Chantier sur la lutte contre le racisms et l'antisemitisme," chaired by ], president of ] and former vice-president of ], October 19, 2004.
*Israel: Coordinating Forum for Countering Antisemitism, headed by Deputy Foreign Minister Rabbi Michael Melchior, set up in 2001.
*UK: "All Parliamentary Inquiry into Anti-Semitism in the UK," chaired by Dr. ], former Europe Minister for the UK, September 7, 2006.
*U.S.: "Report on Global Anti-Semitism," U.S. State Dept, 2004.
------------
::The major issue isn't the sources but rather the frequent misquoting or selective quoting of them in order to create a one-sided presentation. It's a standard technique of propagandists. The problem with this article is that one person is forcing everything to be perceived through a distorted lens. That said, it fairly easy to notice that the main writer of this article is pushing an agenda. Dave Winer once said that one of the biggest issues with Misplaced Pages is that many articles are written with people with agendas and that more people need to be aware of this. --] 13:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

:::Give me one example of my "frequent misquoting or selective quoting." And '''do not accuse me again of "pushing an agenda."''' You are being incredibly offensive. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 17:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

===Great suggestion from incident report===
Guy just made a great suggestion in response to my incident report. My issue with the article is the same issue that SlimVirgin and Jayjg have with my edits -- they are disagreements about the accuracy in which the reports are summarized. The solution, Guy suggests, is to move towards more full quotes from these reports which should reduce the importance and thus need to concern ourselves with these subjective summarizes. --] 16:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
:Sounds like a great idea- readers can draw their own conclusions, we don't need to do it for them. ] ] 16:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

::In order to avoid direct confrontation with SV / Jayjg -- I would like to avoid the perception that I am provoking them -- I am doing to work on flushing out the criticism section using fully quotes. --] 17:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

:::But you ''are'' being deliberately provocative; you gave notice that you would do this several weeks ago. It's not a good idea to overuse quotes, because then the section will turn into a list of quotes rather than a narrative, which is what many of the badly written articles on Misplaced Pages are like. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 17:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

::::I did not say that I would attack the article many weeks ago but rather that I would attempt to address what I feel are balance problems with the article. I do not plan to give up. --] 17:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

== Another source for British report ==

. --] 13:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

:We don't need it. We have the report itself. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 17:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
::But they are useful in backing up how we describe the report. Without third-party commentary, it can become easy to draw ] or inadvertantly push a certain point of view by emphasizing parts or ideas that didn't receive emphasis in the press or in general. (This isn't necessarily me endorsing the Haaretz article, as I'm not familiar with that paper.) - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 17:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

:::I'm aware of that, and I've been extremely careful to report accurately on the parts of the report that directly concern our article. As I said below, criticism of the report will be added if and when people publish any, which will take some time. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 17:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

==British report==
I've added the material from it that's directly relevant to our article. I'm looking out for criticism of the report and will add it when it arrives, but it could be a few days or longer before the serious commentators get a chance to review it. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 17:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

==Accuracy in quoting==

In a recent edit, SlimVirgin added the following image to the "Left and anti-Zionism" section:

] of the political spectrum than on the ]." <ref name=APP32> {{PDFlink}}, September 2006, p.32.</ref>]]

In fact, this is not accurate. The quoted text appears only once in the course of the report, and in the following context:

"158. We heard evidence that contemporary antisemitism in Britain is now more commonly found on the left of the political spectrum than on the right. Professor Cesarani submitted that this has made it harder to define and contest "because it no longer has any resemblance to classical Nazi-style Jew hatred, because it is masked by or blended inadvertently into anti-Zionism, and because it is often articulated in the language of human right".

The committee does not offer an opinion on Professor Cesarani's views. Its only recommendation in this section is to advise the Electoral Commission to establish a "contract of acceptable behaviour" for candidates to exercise due caution "when addressing issues such as racism, community relations and minorities during political campaigning."

In other words, the quoted text is a misattribution and has no business being in the article.

I hope that a further review of the British report will not result in the discovery of similar misattributions. ] 20:08, 7 September 2006 (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: