Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New anti-Semitism

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep but cleanup (overwhelming consensus to keep) -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:20, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

New anti-Semitism
This article is POV by nature. "Modern anti-Semitism" or "New anti-Semitism" is the Zionist concept that, in the olden days, there was crude anti-Semitism like gas chambers, and that we nowadays are confronted with sneakier anti-Semitism involving such heinous acts as criticising Israeli government policy.


 * I have never heard of a Jewish group which holds that criticism of the State of Israel is anti-Semitism. In fact such a claim is a classic strawman attack.  People should not make claims up about the Jews, when the Jews in fact have no such beliefs. RK 23:37, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * There are Jews who believe that. She references in the article. Chamaeleon 15:45, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If the article were simply about anti-Semitism in modern times, then it would be great. However, it is about something the article itself admits is a neologism ("The term The New anti-Semitism was coined at the outset of the 21st century"). The article does not even pose the question of whether this non-existent phenomenon is reality or not: it simply explains how bad it is, subdividing it into varities etc. The entire article pushes the POV that such a thing exists.


 * Again, this is untrue. The article was never solely about what is called "the new anti-Semitism".  From the very beginning this article was about anti-Semitism since the end of World War II.  You are attacking something that isn't there. RK 23:37, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * That comment is not in accordance with the facts. Chamaeleon 15:45, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If there were an article called New anti-Americanism that said "The new anti-Americans are those people who attack our democratically-elected President and show themselves up as unpatriotic by failing to support our army in its liberation of other countries" we would quickly zap it, salvaging any sensible content for merging into Anti-American sentiment or some such article.

We must do the same with articles such as this, which push a Zionist POV. There are several pieces of notable information in it, and these should be salvaged for the article Anti-Semitism and/or Anti-Zionism. That is where they belong, along with the (notable, though false) claim that some special, new form of anti-Semitism (which, incidentally, is a bad thing) exists. Chamaeleon 15:06, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I initially just turned it into a redirect, but then thought that someone might revert that change, so a VfD entry is probably necessary. NB: I'm not asking for any article deletion or censoring, just making it a redirect and merging any NPOV content into Anti-Semitism and/or Anti-Zionism. Chamaeleon 15:11, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * We do not snip of controversial bits of articles and put them in separate ones. It is well known that this leads to the separate article being a POV playground.  For this reason, we try to avoid articles such as criticism of CNN, and just put the criticism in the main article. Chamaeleon 16:37, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. Merging the New Anti-Semitism article into the anti-Semitism article is a bad idea for two reasons. First, the information was removed from the anti-Semitism article 9 months ago because it was more controversial than the rest of the article, and therefore it was hoped it would bring some semblance of peace to the main article by moving it elsewhere. Second, this article is already 44K in size, and adding it back will make it closer to 60K, thus requiring an inevitable hiving-off of a sub-article anyway, as has been done with many other sections. The article itself should be improved by bringing published and cited views from both sides of the debate; VfDs should not be used to solve NPOV issues. Jayjg (talk)  16:26, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. --Mrfixter 16:31, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. MathKnight 16:38, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. RK 23:37, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * Many of your claims were addressed in the article.
 * "The article does not even pose the question of whether this non-existent phenomenon is reality or not ... The entire article pushes the POV that such a thing exists." The article includes links to various reports that show a dramatic increase in antisemitic attacks in Western Europe, starting from 2002 and still lasting in 2003 and 2004. So it does exists.
 * "Modern anti-Semitism" or "New anti-Semitism" is the Zionist concept that, in the olden days, there was crude anti-Semitism like gas chambers, and that we nowadays are confronted with sneakier anti-Semitism involving such heinous acts as criticising Israeli government policy." See the section "straw man antisemitism". I hardly see our burning a synagouge in France by radical Muslims is criticising the Israeli government policy.
 * Since the new or modern antisemitism is what you call an "ongoing event" and still contraversial, it is good to seperate it as a sub-topic from the "antisemitsm" article, which deals with the past (which is much more static than the present).
 * MathKnight 16:38, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * That is a straw-man argument. Perhaps I should have waited until Jayjg renamed it New anti-Semitism so that the issue would be clear.  Nobody is saying there is no longer any anti-Semitism in the world.  I even recently wrote a little about modern neo-nazis in the anti-Semitism article.  The point is that this article is not about anti-Semitism in recent times (I would not be against such an article), but rather it is explicitly about something called "New anti-Semitism", which is a way of saying that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitic.  We would not accept this on another topic, so why accept it here? Chamaeleon 17:27, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm, yes, perhaps less precipitous action in general, say, by using the Talk: pages to try to propose changes, might have resolved this more amicably. Regardless, the only strawman argument here is the claim that "New anti-Semitism" is just a way of saying "anti-Zionism is anti-Semitic".  The article itself is reasonably careful to distinguish between anti-Zionism and the New anti-Semitism.  If the distinction is not clear enough, it can be made more clear. Jayjg (talk)  17:52, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep whether you agree that the things described in the article are valid anti-semitism or not, it's hard to deny that modern anti-semitism does exist in some form or another. This article should be kept, though if you disagree with it theere are ways of dealing with that, preferably through well-documented edits.  VfD isn't a cleanup method.  Also, article should not be merged, for reasons described by Jayjg above. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  16:48, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Straw man. Nobody is saying there is no anti-Semitism in modern times, but in that case the article should be called Anti-Semitism since 1950 or some other date.  The article has now been moved to New anti-Semitism, in line with its contents and in agreement with Jayjg and others who agree with its content.  Now no one can use that straw-man argument. Chamaeleon 17:30, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. Certainly a very touchy, loaded subject, I agree that it needs extensive review for NPOV. It may also need some kind of title change. But I think it should remain an article in its own right, and will leave any possible changes it may need to wiser and less biased heads than mine. HyperZonk 19:07, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, agree with jayjg. It needs NPOV but deletion is not appropriate. Rhobite 19:16, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * If you agree with Jayjg, then you don't think it needs NPOV. He is the one responsible for the current state of it, and fully defends it.  All you people who are saying "keep", what do you actually mean by that?  Turn it into an article on recent anti-Semitism?  That would entail deleting all the text and moving information from Anti-Semitism into it.  Turning it into an NPOV discussion of the "new anti-Semitism" slur, making it like Creationism?  OK, but that would be a total rewrite, and does not address the issue whether we believe it is good to put the controversial bits of articles into separate articles.  Keep it much as it is?  Untenable. Chamaeleon 19:39, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * What nonsense. I do think it needs NPOV, I am not "responsible for the current state of it", nor have I "fully defended" its current state.  On the contrary, I have welcomed NPOV additions, so long as they are not original research. Jayjg (talk)  19:56, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * You made the last edit before it was made a redirect. That edit was not part of a re-write.  You were content to keep it as a Zionist page.  So, you are one of those responsible for the state it was in.  You clearly are against a re-write. Chamaeleon 20:45, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * My last edit was a minor preparation for a re-name, and removal of small amounts of off-topic stuff, as part of a proposed re-write; here it is:. Also see the Talk: page for a number of suggestions I made along those lines, which other editors agreed with. You claims are erroneous or disingenuous. Jayjg (talk)  21:04, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * That's a very tenuous accusation - you're saying that all edits which do not solve a POV problem are implicit approvals of the POV. Rhobite 22:19, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment. At the moment, the article strikes me as a very poor one.  However, VfD is not generally about content but about whether the topic is encyclopedic and (in conjunction with other articles) is a reasonable way of dividing up a larger topic.    What distinguishes "New" anti-Semitism from "Old" anti-Semitism?    If the anti-Semitism article had simply grown so large that the decision was made to split out recent contemporary manifestations of anti-Semitism into a separate article, then it seems to me the title of that article should have been something like "Anti-Semitism since (some date)", and that "New anti-Semitism" is a confusing title.   If the concept of "New anti-Semitism" is a new one that has been put forward in articles, books, etc,  and those represent a notable development in thinking about anti-Semitism, then the article should present the argumentation of those books in an NPOV manner, with citation of sources.  I would want to see some evidence that "New" anti-Semitism is a concept that exists outside the mind of the editor who started this article because in the latter case, it is original research.  --BM 20:24, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * BM, here are a couple of links regarding a book of essays about the new anti-Semitism, not written by extremists incidentally.   SlimVirgin 12:55, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, this "new" anti-Semitism does indeed exist beyond the mind of the editors. There are extremist groups that do actually parrot this nonsense.  This is why I think it should be mentioned, but in the anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism articles.


 * It seems nobody accepts the idea that controversial sections are not supposed to be shunted out into separate articles. OK, I'll modify my proposal then.  Should we keep the article at the location New anti-Semitism (or perhaps Allegations of "New anti-Semitism") and report people claiming it exists instead of asserting that it does?  or should we zap this content and instead have an article called Anti-Semitism since 1945 with factual content? Chamaeleon 20:45, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * As discussed and agreed to on the Talk: page, the undisputed incidents of Anti-Semitism should stay in the Anti-Semitism article, while this more controversial phenomenon should remain in the New anti-Semitism article. Jayjg (talk) 21:09, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. The phenomenon exists, regardless of ostrichism .--jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 20:59, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh God, the flip side of Jewish ethnocentrism emerges, and like the previous article an attempt to carve out an idiosyncratic version of the main term. This is propaganda that ought to be zapped just as hard. Delete. --Calton 21:06, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, sorry to bug people, but I again have to ask what that means. The content as it stands should clearly go, but I think we can't avoid reporting on the belief in "new anti-Semitism".  So, are you voting to totally zap this, or to merge an NPOV version of it into Anti-Semitism, or to zap this and make an Anti-Semitism since 1945 article?  I don't think "delete" and "keep" really mean much in this context.  Chamaeleon 21:22, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Since when is writing about anti-Semitism in the last 50 years somehow Jewish propaganda? Is writing about homophobia "Queer propaganda"? Is writing about spousal abuse "Feminist propaganda"? No, it ain't. RK
 * No, they are not. However, there are people who are ready to claim that writing about homophobia is "gay recruitment" and that articles about spousal abuse always have "feminist bias". I am not quite sure what they mean, aside from the fact that the articles would disagree with their attitudes, but those claims do exist. No vote - Skysmith 09:41, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment. "New anti-Semitism" seems to exist as a claim made by some authors that criticism of Zionism and Israel (sometimes) represents a new form of anti-Semitism. Unfortunately, this article is not only about those claims, but despite the title seems to be also about "Modern Anti-Semitism". Indeed that is the title of an article which has been redirected here. This blending of so-called "new" and "contemporary/modern" anti-Semitism makes the article a bit of a mish-mash. Regarding "new anti-Semitism", criticism of Zionism and Israel are quite common, but I don't know how widespread is the claim that this criticism represents anti-Semitism. It seems to me that most prominent Jews are at pains to deny that they equate criticism of Zionism and Israel with anti-Semitism. (Indeed, the article cites Alan Dershowitz making precisely this point, and claiming otherwise is described as setting up a "straw man" and itself anti-Semitic. --BM 21:44, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * You have summarized the issues perfectly, and this is why I had been working for days on the Talk: page to get agreement to clean it up. Jayjg (talk) 00:28, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreeing with Jayjg here - Skysmith 09:41, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep the article but it needs some serious NPOV work. --Angr 23:05, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep the article but it needs some serious NPOV work. The definition of attacks needs to be limited or defined - currently "attacks" would seem to include even "attacks" on the article itself. ==SV 01:47, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, POV flame war material. Megan1967 03:15, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete -- unless... I hate this article. The subject itself is a valid topic for Wikipedia, but its treatment is appallingly one-sided.  The article is structured so as to preclude differing points of view and is presided over by a coterie of individuals who seemingly have no intention of allowing both sides to be represented.  It should be scrapped and rebuilt from the ground up, perhaps with guidance from some senior Wikipedia editors w/regard to structure and content.  Wiki needs to stop being such wimps and intervene on this one.  It really is appalling. deeceevoice 04:46, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Probably a valid topic, so I can't say delete, but the present article is deeply POV, and I agree with deeceevoice that the POV is even in the structure of the article. The article seems to start by assuming the truth of what is, in fact, an extremely controversial thesis. I don't think it would hurt to delete the present content and start over. This article needs major attention. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:52, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Non-controversial areas of modern anti-semitism (i.e. anything not directly relating to controversial anti-zionist views or critisms of Israel) should probebly be addressed under the original anti-semitism artlicle. -Cab88 11:24, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC) Check for NPOV but keep. Capitalistroadster 11:48, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep The article needs to find more scholarly sources, but it seems clear there is a new type of anti-Semitism on the rise, with anti-Zionism used (by some, not all) as an excuse &mdash; as the article says, as a Trojan horse &mdash; to attack Jews, and as such it has given a cover of respectability to anti-Semitism, to the point where, in Europe certainly, the views of leftwing activists and the far right seem to converge. This is a new phenomenon. Because of the newness of it, the article has to be careful to avoid original research, but that's just a matter of being careful about attribution. SlimVirgin 07:02, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep The concept of "New Anti-semitism" has some prominent proponents as well as some prominent critics. Thus it is worthy of a article but the article has seriouse NPOV issues as it stands. The article should probebly adhare to the following structure if it is to be NPOV:
 * In the opening paragraph the article should make it clear that the concept of "new anti-semitism" is one being pushed by some Zionists and summerize how they define it. The opening paragraph should also make it clear that the definition and even in some cases the very validity of the concept/term is controversial.
 * It should then present the views those who support the concept and as to how they define it.
 * It should present the views of Israeli critics who disagree with the who concept of "New anti-semitism".
 * Keep. Real phenomenon with upsurge in anti-Semitism in Europe and where you have prominent leftwingers Ken Livingstone the Lord Mayor of London comparing a Jewish reporter to a concentration camp guard and refusing to apologise.
 * Let's be clear, Livingstone compared a reporter for the Daily Mail, a paper notorious for its Nazi/Mosleyite views in the 1930s, with a kapo. AndyL 20:02, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * LOL Ken Livingstone an anti-Semite -- even the people who have started this campaign against him say clearly that they don't think he's an anti-Semite. Livingstone has in fact been campaigning against racism all his life, and he has become a target for the right-wing press precisely because he opposes the current racist wave against Muslims and because he favours dialogue with the Muslim community and their leaders. He has made it abundantly clear that he compared the reporter to a concentration camp guard because both adhere to the same amoral attitude towards their work i.e. "I'm just following the rules and I'm doing it because I get paid for it". The New anti-Semitism has at about the same level as this comment by Capitalistroadster: just don't let facts get in the way.
 * Keep. Duuuh. Gzuckier 18:54, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, is Anti-Semitism really "dead" in the 21st Century??? IZAK 08:52, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, important topic: even if one-third of 31,900 google hits are relevant non-dups, it is worth an article.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 09:25, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep the article, delete the contents. What a disgrace!  --Zero 12:39, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Deleting the contents of the article is basically asking for a rewrite. -- AllyUnion (talk) 15:48, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, and work towards an NPOV version as Jayjg and others have described--Josiah 18:43, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * "Misrepresentation or singling out for obloquy Zionism, a political movement of Jewish self-determination" -- This article is very POV and yes, I know of a number of those who have described virtually any criticism of Zionism has been treated as tantamount to anti-Semitism. Some anti-Zionists are also anti-Semites and use codewords to disguise their anti-semitism but not all anti-Zionists are anti-Semites (I'd say only a small minority are anti-Semitic) it's also true that a number of Zionists dismiss any criticism as anti-Semitism and use the spectre of a "new anti-Semitism" as a silencing device. Both sides need to be told here. AndyL 20:07, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Note that, merely by saying that, the definition as it stands in the article would actually count you as a new anti-Semite. It is going to take a lot of us to fight against Jayjg if we want anything approaching an NPOV version of the article.  Chamaeleon 01:09, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep and NPOVify. JFW | T@lk  21:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep and expand. --Viriditas | Talk 22:47, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and exapand. 172 10:17, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would delete it. It's all POV. See for example the beginning: "Zionism, a political movement of Jewish self-determination". But things are not so simple. Zionism is not just a political movement of Jewish self-determination. Zionism is a doctrine which affirms that Jews have to return to Israel, a land that most of them have left centuries ago, and that they have to found a state there that has to be a Jewish State, which is a little bit as to say that Italy would have to be a Catholic state. The best Israelian, as Abraham Yehoshua, thinks that Israel has to become a ordinary State, not a Jewish state. Israel has repetly violated international law and UN resolutions. Of course its existence is now a state of fact and it's not in question, but I don't think that it has born in the good way, and I don't think to be antisemitic in saying this. One could oppose Zionism and be antisemitic, but could even oppose Zionism and not be at all antisemitic. Jews are not Israel, and who claims the contrary is not doing them a good service! We could talk of modern forms of antisemitism in the article antisemitism or question if some forms of anti-Zionism are antisemitic. There is not the need for this article.--Juliet.p 11:32, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete and merge any relevant information into anti-Semitism. At the moment, this is an empty uniformative non-article about a neologism. -- The Anome 13:52, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. I see an emerging consensus that an article of the name or similar should stay, but that the content is very POV and needs either a lot of editing or a total re-write. I have starting writing the article from scratch, and would like everyone's input, especially from impartial people who did not previously have the page on their watchlist.  I am having a hard time because Jayjg and MathKnight are reverting back to the POV version.  Please all come and help write a balanced, rational discussion. Chamaeleon 15:45, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * You don't "write an article from scratch" in the existing article, especially when that involves deleting everything but the information you like. The general protocol is to start with a new Temp version and invite other editors to edit there. Jayjg (talk)  15:52, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Your version is so offensive that it needs to go immediately. It is an embarrassment to Wikipedia.  The new one has a neutral opening, and then a section for each point of view.  You fill in your section, and we'll fill in ours. Chamaeleon 16:08, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It is not "my" version, and what it needs are lots of cited opposing views, so that it will be NPOV. And the "we" you refer to in this case seems to consist of you alone. Jayjg (talk)  18:47, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * You're just talking crap and you know it. I'm tired of arguing patiently with people like you.  I will not let you spread lies in Wikipedia and that is the end of the matter.  I'll not communicate with you any further. Chamaeleon 19:30, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, I know nothing of the kind, I don't recall you ever arguing patiently with anyone, and I recommend reviewing the Civility and Assume good faith policies. And if you don't communicate, you'll find it hard to get consensus for proposed changes to the article. Jayjg (talk)  20:23, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Notwithstanding the current controversies surrounding this article, the term "new anti-Semitism" has been used frequently in recent years and merits an online definition.  CJCurrie 00:47, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete At best redundant considering anti-semitism, at worse just a fellow on a soapbox.
 * Delete, uninformed POV neologism. JamesBurns 09:54, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.