Talk:Antisemitic incidents during the Gaza War (2008–2009)/Archive 1

Lead

The sentence "The three-week 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict sparked numerous attacks against Jews world-wide" is a bit overstretched and is an OR. There have been antiSemitic incidents in parts of Europe, but this does not justify to call it worldwide. Even in Europe, apart from France most of the incidents were remote and isolated. The lead sentence does not reflect the article in full and should be correced to something like "sparked several attacks against Jews in some parts of Europe". Zencv ^{Lets discuss} 09:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Zencv, certainly "Europe-wide" would be appropriate. Outside of Europe the article briefly mentions Venezuela and Yemen specifically, but you're right: more info from outside of Europe needs to be added. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Name

Cerejota, the reason I didn't call this "Antisemitic incidents..." is because then the article would have to include daubings, threats, vandalism and other "minor" incidents. And frankly, there are just too many of them, and it would be too much work to represent them in the article. "Attacks against" implies a focus on serious incidents. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTE requires we list only serious incidents, by default - and some of the stuff here fails, but there is a reworking being done that seems to be going in the right direction. "Attacks against jews" is like saying "Murder against oneself" instead of "suicide". If we have a word for anti-Jew-as-Jews activity (anti-semitism), lets use it. Sorry for the delay, article explosion.--Cerejota (talk) 06:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

International reaction to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict

I think material from International reaction to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict should be merged here. What should be done about the table? (Well done Jalapenos for creating such a comprehensive article!) Chesdovi (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the compliment, Chesdovi. Wikipedia can be a frustrating environment to work in, and it's really encouraging to hear when one's work is appreciated. When I get the chance I'll look at the material in the other article. I don't know what you mean by "the table". Can you explain? Also, the article is unfortunately not comprehensive enough: there's plenty of material that needs to be added, and there are some minor stylistic and structural problems too. I would really appreciate it if you would consider contributing some of your time to fixing this article up. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 13:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

What I was trying to do is to nominate this article for AFD. Yamanam (talk) 11:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Go for it, but while doing so, please refrain from moving the article to a different title or destroying its content, as this would unnecessarily complicate the discussion. By the way, something treated by multiple reliable sources as fact should be written in Wikipedia as a fact, sourced to the reliable sources, and not as an allegation. The relation between the spike in antisemitic incidents and the conflict is such a case. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 13:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think first u need to make some statistical studies about the correlation and regression between the incidents and the events to make sure that those incidents are related to the assault, or you can provide reliable sources saying so. Most, if not all, of the resources didn't confirm 100% that the incidents and the assault are related. I am afraid I'll rv your last edit and move the article to the title I suggested, since, according to the resources that you provided, the link is not confirmed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamanam (talk • contribs) 14:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

And by the way, please don't remove the deletion template. Yamanam (talk) 14:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yamanam, I really have no idea what you're talking about regarding statistical regression and such. The thirty reliable sources cited in the article attribute the spike in incidents to the conflict, and nothing is said in the article that is not found in the sources. You simply don't change the title of an article without discussion. I did not remove the deletion template, but I will change the title back to the stable version, which only you seem to have a problem with. If you move it again, it may be considered vandalism. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 14:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

What I was refering to that you can't come up with a conclusion saying that there is a relation on your own, most of the resources you provided don't mention that. Concerning the title, please let the threats out, Wiki is not a place for threating ppl. Anyways, I agree on the title suggested by Chesdovi. Concerning my edits I explained them all in the Edit Summary bar. Yamanam (talk) 14:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Alleged?

While it is impossible to link each and every attack to the conflict, most are linked. This is quite clear from the surge of attacks which happen when violence in the ME flares. Maybe the title should be changed to Antisemitic incidents occuring during the conflict, letting the article mention that the attacks are most probably linked to the conflict. When I was verbally attacked with a torrent of abuse in a gas station, I thought this is just typical anti-semitic abuse. When my attacker mentioned the "Jew country killing innocent women and childeren in Gaza", I realised he was intimidating me because members of the Israeli cabinet and I, a UK citizen, share the same religion... Chesdovi (talk) 14:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am sorry to hear about your attack, and sure I wouldn't be happy with anyone being attacked in the whole world. Back to the subject, I agree on the article you are suggesting, sounds realistic for me. Yamanam (talk) 14:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Be neutral, both of you, rather than personal and bias.--Theosony (talk) 01:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The table

Is this table now necessary now we have an article? Chesdovi (talk) 14:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that the information in the table should be integrated in to the article in the form of text; I just don't think a table is the best way to present the information in this case. But this will involve a lot of work, and every datum should be checked vis-a-vis the source. I won't be able to do that anytime soon. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 14:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to point out for the benefit of anyone reading this talk page that Yamanam has nominated the article for deletion. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 14:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It does need thorough sifting. Eg. the daubing in Stockholm was directed against the Israeli embassy, not exactly anti-semitic. Chesdovi (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Location	Country	Nature of attack	Details
Amran	Yemen	Harassment and threats	Harassment and threats directed at the family of a murdered Jewish citizen of Yemen have escalated in light of the Gaza assault.
Berlin	Germany	Assault	Palestinian man assaulted a police employee who was guarding a synagogue.
Brussels	Belgium	Arson and vandalism	A Molotov cocktail was thrown at the Beth Hillel Liberal synagogue in Brussels. Rocks and other objects were thrown at a Jewish school. A Jewish home was the subject of an attempted arson.
Camarillo, California	United States	Daubing	A Jewish preschool in Camarillo has become a victim of a hate crime, with swastikas and anti-Semitic messages written in black marker on its sidewalk and walls.
Chicago	United States	Vandalism	A Molotov cocktail was thrown at the North Side temple in Chicago. The glass doors at Lincolnwood Jewish Congregation were shattered by a brick and "Free Palestine" and "Death to Israel" were spray painted on the building.
Duisburg	Germany	Vandalism	Stones were thrown at an apartment that had Israeli flags on the balcony.
Helsingborg	Sweden	Arson and assault	An unknown assailant broke a window of a Jewish center, and threw a flaming object at the congregation. The staircase of a Jewish center was twice set on fire
Irvine, California	United States	Daubing	Three letter-sized, hand-written signs were discovered Dec. 30 at Beth Jacob, an Orthodox congregation in Irvine. One poster proclaimed, "Gaza -- The New Shoah" and a second read, "Hamas Recognises Israeli Genocide." Similar posters were found on the same day at the nearby Reform Congregation Shir Ha-Ma'alot.
Kedumim	West Bank	Stabbing	Five Israelis were stabbed.
Lille	France	Daubing	The acronym "ZOG" (Zionist Occupation Government) and a swastika have been daubed in Lille's synagogue. Stones also have been thrown on the windows.
Le Puy en Velay	France	Daubing	Police found anti-Semitic graffiti -- "Kill the Jews"-- as well as "Free Gaza" and "Long Live Palestine" daubed on a wall near the local mosque.
London	United Kingdom	Daubings, assault, arson, abuse	Graffiti reading 'Jihad 4 Israel' and 'Kill Jews' daubed on a bus stop in Temple Fortune.
Los Angeles	United States	Offensive postings	Anti-Israel and pro-Hamas placards were posted at two synagogues.
Modi'in Illit	West Bank	Stabbing	A Palestinian labourer stabbed and wounded four Israelis.
Montceau-les-Mines	France	Daubing	Anti-Semitic graffiti -- "Death to the Jews" -- were daubed on a highschool wall
Mulhouse	France	Daubing	"Death to Israel" graffiti was found on Mulhouse synagogue.
Nice	France	Daubings	Anti-Semitic remarks were daubed on a public primary school.
Odense	Denmark	Shooting	Two Israelis sustain light wounds after being shot at by unknown assailants, allegedly Arab.
Paris	France	Vandalism and daubings	A rabbi's car was vandalised, and antisemitic graffiti was drawn on the wall of a shopping center.
Rada'a	Yemen	Physical assault and vandalism	Some Jewish kids were injured, one seriously, when Muslim students threw stones at them. Anti-Israel protesters also attacked several Jewish homes, smashing windows and pelting them with rocks.
Rostock	Germany	Vandalism and Daubings	Rocks were thrown at windows of Jewish Community Center.
Saint Denis	France	Arson	A firebomb thrown at a synagogue in a Paris suburb burned an adjacent kosher restaurant, the Interior Ministry said. No one was injured.
Schiltigheim	France	Arson	A synagogue in eastern France was the target of three petrol-filled bottle.
Stockholm	Sweden	Daubing	Slogans, including "murderers ... You broke the ceasefire", were daubed on Israel's embassy in Stockholm.
Toronto	Canada	Antisemitic incitement	Anti-Israel demonstrators yell "You are the brothers of pigs!," and a protester complains to his interviewer that "Hitler didn't do a good job."
Toulouse	France	Vandalism and arson	A burning car was driven into a Synagogue in Toulouse.
Villiers-le-Bel	France	Physical assault and insults	A 14-year-old Jewish girl was physically and verbally assaulted by four teenagers

We cannot list anti-Israeli incidents here

So the following will be excluded: In Denmark, a Dane born in Lebanon of Palestinian parents allegedly opened fire on two Israelis, injuring them; Danish police suspect the incident could be linked to the Gaza crisis. Chesdovi (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right. This is why I originally called the article "Attacks against Jews related to the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict", so that we wouldn't have to sift through incidents that are mentioned together in the sources. I suggest that maybe we leave it in until the deletion proposal is settled, as it may end up in a title change and corresponding redefinition of the article. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes they are intermingled. I guess that's why you mentioned "sifting through incidents"... Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Cutoff point

I feel a little bit uncomfortable that we're listing relatively minor incidents. If one protester in Canada shouted an antisemitic slur on TV, I don't think this needs to be in an encyclopedia. May I suggest that we individually list only those incidents involving physical violence toward persons or property (this would include defacement) and perhaps death threats. Verbal abuse I think can be adequately represented in, say, one short summary paragraph. Thoughts? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree, such abuse is far too common and not notable in this regard. The fact that a group of grining Muslims hooted at me today as they drove past is also minor, if not a tad unsettling. Chesdovi (talk) 22:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

What about creating a new article(this classic article would serve as a guideline) about your personal tragedy? Welcome to Judeopedia and have fun :) Zencv ^{Lets discuss} 21:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear about your experience. Do you agree with the cutoff point I suggested? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Go ahead. I'll have a look and see what it looks like later! Chesdovi (talk) 01:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

chesdovi you could read what wikipedia is not. among other things it's not a blog or a diary.--Severino (talk) 23:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Did he or she use Wikipedia as a blog or as a diary? No he or she did not. Your comment is rather disingenuous, as is the comment about the "Judeopedia". Afroghost (talk) 21:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Afroghost, How do you know he was not? In any case, his mentioning of a personal incident in a talk page in WP, and taking it for granted that WP is the place to discuss real or imagined discrimination(ghosh, he made it clear that he is being generous by not including it in the article) is unnecessary Zencv ^{Lets discuss} 23:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Using examples to make a point related to the article is hardly unreasonable. What is unreasonable are your racist comments and your attempts to misrepresent what others write on talk pages. Afroghost (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

WP is(or atleast should be) all about facts based on notability. If some racists abused Mr.X because he belongs to Y race/religion(even if it is true), take it to FOX news or JPost or your favorite media blog, not to WP talk page - this was my point. Your argument is illogical. Zencv ^{Lets discuss} 23:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

And again you misrepresenting what he said. He used an example to illustrate why something should not be included in the article. Notability guidelines have nothing to do with talk pages, in fact that was exactly Chesdovi point. If you are so confused about it, take a break and read WP:TALK, and pay particular attention to point "Do not misrepresent other people". Afroghost (talk) 23:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

your comments are disingenuous, "afroghost". (alleged) personal experiences do not belong to talk pages of wikipedia articles. neither your recent comments here. Please abide by WP:Talk page guidelines.--Severino (talk) 03:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You are the one who should abide by Wikipedia:Talk#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable. Misrepresenting what other editors say is completely unacceptable, and this is already the second time you are ignoring this basic talk page rule. Talk page are for discussions on the article, and using personal experiences to illustrate why something should or should not be included in the article is completely within the talk page rules. Your willingness to misrepresent both what WP:Talk says and what other editor wrote only shows who is disingenuous here. Afroghost (talk) 03:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Something tells me that Severino will not warn the editor responsible for this edit not to post his personal experience on the talk page. Afroghost (talk) 06:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Not even a comparison. If I were to share an experience with the same intention as Chesdovi's intention (to show how the other side is abusing my side) I would have mentioned the time one Jewish teacher told my 14-year-old brother with learning disabilities that if he isn't going to take homework seriously he should go back to his country and have them train him to be a suicide bomber to kill kids because that is his only hope. Now I mentioned it, thanks. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

And now Severino will remind you of his made-up talk page rules. Afroghost (talk) 06:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I hope that given everyone's experience living in the world that we live in, we will still be able to edit this article rationally and precisely. Statements like those made above however do raise the issue of WP:COI.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

To the user who considers this talk page as a chat room: Please abide by WP:Talk page guidelines. "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page." Does not do so.--Severino (talk) 04:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

At least you trying to be even handed, although the ambiguity of your response is telling. But still, Falastine fee Qalby was fully within his rights to mention a negative personal experience to make apoint. So please reread WP:Talk and do not come here and try supress the discussion about the article by making bogus claims about not being allowed to use examples to illustrate a point. And frankly, it would be good if we would be more understanding of personal experiences here, as the root of the conflict is the lack of emphathy when it comes to the personal experience of the one on the other side. Afroghost (talk) 05:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Per this edit [1], refreshing to see someone so openly admitting their double standard. As if your agenda wasn't clear from the beginning. Afroghost (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Afro, here you go again by twisting the facts and even suppressing any criticism, by playing the familiar antiSemitism card. Go ahead. I have better things to do than refactoring talk pages and browsing others edit histories to make a point Zencv ^{Lets discuss} 20:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Sweden

quite busy but I wanted to put up a few links in regard to Sweden which I have been reading in the last few days. I will try to expand on them later but may not get to it for awhile. If anyone else wants a go, here they are: Attacks against Swedish Jews on the rise, Antisemitism on the rise in Sweden, Ten arrested at Malmo pro-Israel demonstration Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Human Rights First has a pro-Israeli bias and so should not be quoted in the introduction (or indeed at all)

This is a group which failed to condemn Israel's actions in Gaza. Yet it considers anti-semitic daubings and graffiti more endangering to human rights? This shows a bias. We should not quote them in the introduction, just as we would not quote aan anti-Semite saying these attacks were justified (that's an example, I'm not saying they were.)

I'm moving it and may remove completely in a couple of days, please discuss here if you have any valid arguments.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I take it this is the motivation behind your recent edit:

However, the same group failed to condemn the murder of innocent children by Israeli forces in Gaza, and so are seen as biased and not a reliable source.

High-profile human rights groups are rarely indisputably neutral, but they are still notable POVs. The opinion of "an antisemite" would not be a notable POV. Your inability to distinguish between reliability and neutrality, and your willingness to insert unsourced POV statements into the lede, presenting your own uninformed personal judgment as fact ("and so are seen as...") should indicate to you that you are not likely capable of contributing to this article. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Am with Jalapenos on this one. Putting OR like that in article space is pointy as pointy comes. --Cerejota (talk) 04:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's an Arab source that acknowledges the situation : Effects of Israel's war felt in Europe and in New Zealand [2] "Under photo: Israel's aggression in Gaza is prompting anti-Jewish violence in Europe and discrimination in New Zealand Tundrabuggy (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

removal of sourced line

I removed a sourced line about some one shouting "got back to the ovens". Unless shouted by a notable person, the direct quote and the incident aren't really notable: speech is speech, however nasty. Graffiti, posters in synagogues etc, are vandalism, and hence clear incidents. Some lone protester shouting bullshit isn't. I know it hurts to hear that, and the guy deserves infamy if not a bullet (or perhaps an oven, to see if he laffs now), but we are writing an encyclopedia, not a litany of antisemitic crimes.--Cerejota (talk) 05:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, your removal was consistent with the outcome of the discussion above ("cutoff point"). Jalapenos do exist (talk) 15:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

south africa

I didn't remove because this case is not clear to me. It does have a nasty flavor, but I am not sure it is an antisemitic incident per se. Perhaps belongs in her BLP page, but I am not sure here. Comments?--Cerejota (talk) 05:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it be, if she says that Jewish money controls America? Haaretz and Jerusalem Post call it antisemitic. Other RS's call it "allegedly antisemitic". Jalapenos do exist (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Can we get a non-Israeli source that calls them "antisemtic"? We should agree that this threshold is higher in Israeli media than elsewhere. I mean, this is bordeline stuff for me - why I didn't remove it - in part because this is not a random protester, but a deputy minister of a country with a, lets say, problematic relationship with Israel. But it needs better sourcing then. --Cerejota (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to paraphrase Nableezy's mantra (just for fun): Haaretz is a reliable source. The Jerusalem Post is a reliable source. :) Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Changing the title

I don't think this would be the appropriate title for the article, first, we shouldn't lead the reader to the conclusion that those were antisemitic attacks, since most of the attackers didn't say they were targeting the Jewish because they are Jewish. Second, why r u corelating these attacks with the conflict? this is misleading and POV in my opinion. I suggest the following title:

Perosnal attacks during the period 27 Dec 2008 to 18 January 2009. --Yamanam (talk) 18:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This has already responded to by Cerejota, who was the one who changed the tile from "anti-Jewish attacks" to "antisemitic incidents...". Attacks against Jews as Jews are antisemitic by definition, regardless of the particular political motivation. On the other hand, the shooting of Jewish Israelis in Denmark is not included in this article: they were presumably shot because they were Israelis, not because they were Jews; thus the shooting was not an antisemitic act, even though the victims were Jews. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much well stated. --Cerejota (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

United Kingdom

With regard to the following in the United Kingdom section: Prominent British Jews were advised to review their security arrangements after several were identified on Islamist websites as “financial supporters of Israel”.

There was an article in The Sun written by Glen Jenvey which turned out to be a hoax. Sun front-page story on 'terror target' Sir Alan Sugar under investigation

The Times articles doesn't actually name any of the Islamist websites so I'm wondering if this is credible? Should the wording be changed?

Denmark

That many headmasters and/or Jewish parents don't want to enroll their children in schools is out of fears. It is not because Muslim pupils have committed antisemitic acts against Jewish pupils (If they have, then those should be mentioned). Thus such reports, where no antisemitic act has occurred shouldn't be in the article.

Secondly, this source is hardly reliable, it is pure commentary.VR _talk 19:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The article doesn't say why the Danish headmasters fear for the safety of Jewish children from Muslim pupils and protesters (although it doesn't take a genius to figure it out). The article merely states that Jewish students have been discriminated against because of that fear. Discrimination against Jews as Jews is antisemitism, even if the motive is noble, and, hypothetically, even if it is based on an unjustified fear.

An opinion piece in a quality newspaper such as the Independent is reliable in the sense that if it states facts, those facts are reliably true. Obviously, a news article would be better, but I think that opinion piece was corroborated by a news article and was only cited to support some small detail or another that wasn't in the better source. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree.--Cerejota (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

State media?

Could we perhaps include a section pertaining to the extremely racist state-media of many Middle Eastern countries? I know for a fact that the state-controlled papers of Syria, Iran, Egypt (occasionally), Yemen, and others consistently compare the Israeli treatment of Palestinians to the Nazi treatment of Jews during WW2 in cartoon sections.

Don't be too alarmed, Abbas' university thesis was some analogy about Zionism and Nazism LOL.

Anyways, I know I'm too biased to craft this but I'd thought I should mention it. Suggestions? Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I always disagree with the Arab media comparing israeli treatment of Palestinians to Nazi treatment to Europeans, this is really bad, nothing should be compared with the israeli treatment of Palestinians. And the only suggestion I have, this article is to be deleted, Wiki is not for promoting POV. Yamanam (talk) 13:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Why? It's become quite a pattern when wars erupt in the Middle East that result in world-wide protests towards Jews, which often become violent. It truly is a phenomenon.

Back to what I was saying. The vast majority of Muslim media is under an iron curtain where state controls everything that goes in an out. Considering that the these newspapers/websites promoting states' views wouldn't it be reasonable to say this could be encouraging the protests? Jews have been compared to Nazis in that area of the world since the 1980s so it would make sense to at least mention it, right? All across that Arab world states have continued the rhetoric that Jews control washington, government, world monetary system etc... all at the indifference or support by the nations these media sources come from. clinton is a zionist puppet

Why this isn't in wikipedia yet is beyond me, but it's notable enough to include it here IMO. I just don't know where. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan, sometimes I really don't understand you. If reliable sources say that Middle Eastern countries have racist state media, that would certainly be notable, but why bring it up in this article? This article has nothing to so with it. If there's no article on the subject already, and it's dealt with by reliable sources, create an article for it. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you don't understand me because you don't read what I write. Let me simplify: I'm trying to quantify the elements that contribute to this pattern of protest, i.e Israel shoots someones - result: Muslim world protests en mass. The logical explanation for such an attitude would the media that influences this people, or more specifically, the media that is conditioned and programmed by the native governments, like Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc... That's what I'm trying to craft into the article, that there is a governmental-push for these ideas, this isn't simply uncivilized disobedience. I may make an article eventually but not right now lol. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, if and when reliable sources make that analysis, we can include it on this page, but in the meantime the page has been put up for deletion again. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course it has.

Warning

There are editors who are arguing on this article's AfD page for its deletion, and at the same time making (bad) edits to the article. If you think the article can be fixed, don't try to delete it. If you think the article can't be fixed, why try to fix it. Making edits to highlight perceived problems with the article is a violation of WP:POINT and probably several other policies as well. We already saw this type of behavior when user:Yamanam changed the article's title immediately before nominating it for deletion, a nice little trick that actually had a pretty significant effect on the AfD discussion. The next time somebody pulls a stunt like this I'm taking it to the Administrator's Noticeboard. Note that this article is bound by special ARBPIA sanctions. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 02:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Jalapenos, it seems to me that u can't distinguish between people's opinions and there contributions to wiki, only becuase u know that my opinion is that this article should be deleted u made a conclusion that I previously changed the title for the benifit of the deletion! Well, think again Jalapenos, the previous title would have collected more voices to delete the article than the title I suggested, since the title I suggested said that those attacks are not 100% related to the conflict, which in turn reduces the pressure to delete the artilce. Maybe you need to assume more good faith, if people were to assume bad faith with you, then beleive me, u'd have a very hard time at wiki. And please, don't use the threat treatment at wiki, it might be accepted here, but no one likes it. Yamanam (talk) 10:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yam your above post is extremely hypocritical seeing as how you have not assumeed good faith in the editing process by totally dismissing it as, and im simply condensing your opinion in my own words here so correct me if im wrong, "some sources dont connect with the actual material, this is clear OR and therefor this article needs to be deleted." Am i right? I'm certain you sincerely believe this article does not deserve a spot on wikipedia, but unfortunately many people disagree and have provided a wealth of information to support their opinion. You, and the people who advocate for deletion have been shutdown every time and rightly so. The original AFD went horrible wrong and I blame the speedy process and administrator who observed/decided.. Remember, the article has been cleaned relatively nicedly compared to the first ADF and as a result has gained loyal and committed editors. Thus, your time would be better spent neutralizing the article than promoting a deletion that will likely not happen at this point in time. Cheers! Wikifan12345 (talk) 13:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

First of all, please don't sensationalize sections on talk pages, it's not the blitz or anything. Secondly, it is not up to one or two users to say whether an contribution was good or not. If it is vandalism it is to be removed, if not it should be discussed.--Theosony (talk) 15:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Theosony, this is a friendly reminder to not insert your personal opinion in the article as you did here [3] and here [4]. If you disagree with the content find reliable sources that support your point of view, but adding your personal opinion or interpretation is a violation of core wikipedia principles. Furthermore, large edits are very unhelpful. Please make only one change per edit and use the edit summary. Afroghost (talk) 16:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I have violated no principles. Please see all talk pages relates to the article for views on various media sources. It is also true that one newspaper in particular used sensational headlines, it's fact, no opinion involved. My edits, one by one:

1. No independent studies/reports have been carried out. - FACT, not opinion
2. Sensational - FACT, not opinion
3. OFFENSIVE, not operation - Most media use offensive
4. is unfair as the anti-offensive supporters who caused harm to Jewish people came from all backgrounds - hidden comment, there for debate on this page, not an attack and invisible on the page
5. Is this an incident or a threat that cannot be directly linked to the recent rise?? - could not find date. Have now found it.

--Theosony (talk) 18:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Please provide evidence for your claim that the headline was sensational. You should know that a core Wikipedia policy is Wikipedia:Verifiability and you cannot just go to articles and introduce statements that are merely your personal opinion. Either present reliable sources that support your point of view, or leave your personal commentary out of the article. Afroghost (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Note on incidents

Can we please keep them within the Israel offensive timeline as the title suggests? Or can the title be changed to suit the rambling on the page?--Theosony (talk) 15:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. However it isn't set-in-stone when the war ended, or if it has ended at all. Skirmishes continue while protests have waned, but incidents persist but not to the same extremity as before. I think for now we should hold off in deleting material unless it is beyond a reasonable doubt that it had nothing to do with the conflict in any way shape or form. Focus more on neutralization and weasel words, that should be a goal rather than totally removing sourced info. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict is ongoing, at least according to Wikipedia, though the January 18 ceasefire was certainly a turniing point. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 16:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Antisemitic incidents in the U.S.

I noticed that some info I had removed from this article earlier today had been restored and thought I'd start a discussion. [5] I had removed the information due to the ongoing discussion regarding the article's deletion and what I saw as a general consensus that the article should include only very clear instances of anti-Semitism to avoid WP:OR and WP:SYNTH concerns. The edit is regarding some placards that were posted and left at two Jewish Temples in Irvine California comparing the conflict to the Shoah and describing the Israeli military action as genocide. [6] The police are investigating the incidents as hate crimes. I removed the information because although it seems clear that the placards were anti-Israeli, I am hesitant to call them anti-Semitic. In any case, there is a clearer incident of anti-Semitism described in the article that took place at a Jewish pre-school during the conflict, although it was not tied specifically to the conflict. Thoughts?--Cdogsimmons (talk) 05:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Leave it. Unless something is 100% blatantly obvious that it has nothing to do with the conflict, don't tamper. Post the source(s) here and we can discuss them. We want to avoid deletion as much as possible because that simply leads to good-faith reverts, wars, noticeboards, afds...etc...Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The source again is here.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The antisemitic element in the synagogue case is not really the content of the placards, but the fact that they were left at a synagogue. I would think that the incident doesn't pass the notability threshold for this article, but if the police are investigating it as a hate crime it apparently got taken seriously. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 08:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that if you were just walking down the street waving one of these signs it would rise to the level of a hate crime (plus, your right to free speech would be protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution). I do think that the fact that it is Jewish congregations that are being confronted with this issue (the article doesn't indicate if vandalism or trespass took place) is why you can at least suspect anti-Semitism. It's not a far stretch to think that whoever left those signs thinks that those two congregations at least politically support Israel's military campaign in Gaza. I think, given the political messages left on the signs, that it's a longer stretch to say that whoever left them is prejudiced against Jews because of a "historical religio-cultural aversion to their core ancestral religious beliefs and way of life". (See anti-Semitism). For all we know, it could have been a Jewish member of the congregation who left those posters. The case is ongoing, but I don't think that we should be saying definitively that this is an absolute case of anti-Semistism. That's why this page is under discussion to be deleted. I would favor either removing the information until we have some more definitive facts, or creating a new section, possibly under a heading "Suspected cases of anti-Semitism".--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems pretty clear-cut case to me. Here, I'll quote the article so there is no confusion:

Police are investigating as hate crimes the posting of anti-Israel and pro-Hamas placards at two synagogues.

Three letter-sized, hand-written signs were discovered Dec. 30 at Beth Jacob, an Orthodox congregation in Irvine. One poster proclaimed, "Gaza -- The New Shoah" and a second read, "Hamas Recognizes Israeli Genocide."

Similar posters were found on the same day at the nearby Reform Congregation Shir Ha-Ma'alot.

Kevin O'Grady, Orange County regional director for the Anti-Defamation League, condemned the "targeting of temples to express anger toward Israeli action in Gaza.

They are promoting a radical POV that can easily be interpreted as antisemitic. Understand, one doesn't have to say "JEWS SUCK B$*#)@#$@@#" to be anti-Semitic. Now obviously their anger is posed at Israel, but the fact that they went to a Synagogue, a religious facility for Jews, to vent their "hate" is more than enough evidence to to qualify under antisemitic. Also, the article considers it antisemitic: "Gaza conflict means local anti-Semitism, JFS gets new logo" I do agree that is isn't 100% totally obvious, but something this controversial rarely is and I believe there is more than enough evidence here. If they were protesting at an Israeli embassy, however...that would be a totally different story. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I see this as a borderline incident, and thus should probably not be included, but I am open to a discussion of whether this should be included or not. Afroghost (talk) 02:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the source doesn't see that. What is your reasoning behind "borderline"?

The headline might also have been referring to the more clear cut case of anti-Semitism it mentions where swastikas and anti-Semitic comments were written on a Jewish pre-school's walls. I definitely see why the police would be investigating this as a possible hate crime. I just don't have enough facts to say that it definitively was. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

All the other incidents are in a different league, i.e. physical attacks, vandalism, arson attacks, direct threats. I do not want to downplay this incident, but I would prefer to include only those incidents that are clearly antisemitic and are not a protest. One could probably interpret this is a form of protest (though not my personal interpretation), especially given the low standards set by the anti-Israel crowd. But as I said borderline, so I am rather indifferent whether to include this or not. Afroghost (talk) 04:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, though I'm leaning towards inclusion for now.

And I'm against inclusion, unless we change the name of this article to "Suspected anti-Semitic incidents during the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict". You have decided to represent affirmatively something that is not clearly referenced. That's called WP:OR.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 14:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong. I totally agree that a sign doesn't have to say "JEWS SUCK B$*#)@#$@@#" to be anti-Semitic. If these posters were found to be intended to intimidate or harass people because they are Jewish, then that would be a clear cut case. Without more evidence however I think you could also see them as political commentary. There's ambiguity.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 15:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Original research

Are additions like this original research because editors are assuming every anti-Semitic attack that occurred during the conflict is related to the conflict? A Muslim woman that I know was slapped hard in the face while on the bus and her attacker yelled anti-Muslim slurs, while this happened during the conflict, we don't know if the attack is related to the conflict. The same with the case of Italian neo-Nazis, there is no indication in the source that this is related to the offensive in Gaza. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 05:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It's assumed it is related if the source indicates. Did you read the source? ROME (JTA) -- Police arrested two young neo-fascists for vandalizing Jewish-owned shops in Rome last month.

An announcement Monday said two members of the neo-fascist group called Militia were charged for sealing the shutters on more than a dozen shops, many of them owned by Jews, on the night of Jan. 21-22.

Near the shops, a banner reading "Boycott Israel!" was found, signed by "Militia."

These happenings wouldn't be hitting the news in such a massive way if it weren't related to the conflict. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Militia? How does this relate to the conflict? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 05:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this should probably not be in the article as the source does not explicitly mention a connection to the current conflict (although probably there is). Afroghost (talk) 06:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Does it really need to? We know it's antisemitic, that's a given. Then they put up the boycott sign...an inference to the war. It shouldn't have to include a short caption that says "related to war", it's more than obvious. Implying this is OR is easy to refute just by reading the source. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately the source does not tell us much. I don't speak Italian, otherwise it would be worthwhile to see what has been published in Italian newspapers. Afroghost (talk) 06:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't tell us much, but tells more then enough to establish a situation where skinheads vandalized a shop in response to the conflict. I'm not saying it is 100% obvious, but enough to avoid total removal. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no room to personnal interpretation. Whether the source says it is linked to the events of Gaza, or it doesn't.

Ceedjee (talk) 09:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it does. Did you read it? Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't. I just say that whether the source says so, or it doens't.

So, there is contradiction between "I'm not saying it is 100% obvious" and "Yeah, it does".

Take care to remain wp:civil. Ceedjee (talk) 12:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with including this. It seems to be an anti-Semitic incident that occurred "during" the conflict. That appears to be the intended content of the page.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 15:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think I violated any civility laws with "Yeah, it does." Uh....anyways, I'm not disputing your argument, but the source explicity provides evidence to demonstrate the 'incident' had a strong connection with the war. I'd wish we would hold off on deleting valid information until we come to a consensus. Wikifan12345 (talk) 16:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the entire article

Police arrested two young neo-fascists for vandalizing Jewish-owned shops in Rome last month.

An announcement Monday said two members of the neo-fascist group called Militia were charged for sealing the shutters on more than a dozen shops, many of them owned by Jews, on the night of Jan. 21-22.

Near the shops, a banner reading "Boycott Israel!" was found, signed by "Militia."

The source makes no connection to the conflict in Gaza. It is original research to say it does. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 16:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Repubblica and the Messaggero are reporting on this incident, see http://www.ilmessaggero.it/articolo.php?id=43275&sez=HOME_ROMA and http://www.repubblica.it/2009/01/sezioni/cronaca/negozi-ebrei-roma/negozi-ebrei-roma/negozi-ebrei-roma.html. Apparently poster appeared that both attacked Jewish Italians and urged people to support the terrorist organization Hamas, so apparently there is a connection to the Gaza conflict. Someone with better Italian language skills should put it into the article. Afroghost (talk) 17:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Not so good with Italian, can we ship this to the translation portal (if there is one)? I can't help but disagree with Falastine's "no connection" rationale, the source explicitly states that the vandals placed a "boycott Israel" sign near the building. If you truly believe the source actually falls under the strict OR guidelines, then we can put some sentence denoting the allegation, but logically speaking it's more than obvious it is related to the conflict. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

"anti-Semitism levels unseen since World War II"

Another opinion that should be added: EU Jewish leader: Anti-Semitism spurred by economy, not Gaza war Chesdovi (talk) 01:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Added. Afroghost (talk) 17:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Criticisms and condemnations

Regarding this edit. The article does not discuss criticisms or condemnations of Israel's operation, or attacks directed at Israelis. I think we have International reaction to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict and Media and the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict for this. A source saying that daubing a swastika on a synagogue is anti-Israel and not anti-Semitic would be notable, but the ones provided don't say that. -- Nudve (talk) 16:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The article itself deals with "incidents" and those who committed those "incidents"(ie, mostly European Muslims). If the people who are accused of committing antiSemitic incidents that are noted in this article have something to say abot the allegations, they do belong to the article, not somewhere else Zencv ^{Lets discuss} 17:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, I don't see any point why any sentences with responses to accusations(which are extremely less in this article with undue weightage) should belong to somewhere else like International reaction to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, but the incidents itself should not be merged there. This is a basic problem with these kind of forked articles Zencv ^{Lets discuss} 17:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) But the sources you provided do not address the incidents discussed in the article. Nobody accuses them of criticizing Israel or anyone else. Here, for example, we have a Palestinian student condemning the incidents, but saying they should not silence the criticisms of Israel. This reaction would belong in the article if it was made by someone notable. -- Nudve (talk) 17:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Again as I said, then many of these "incidents" themselves should not have existed in this article. The comment by French Muslim leader(sourced to IHT) is a general response to allegations of "Rising antiSemitism in France", which is mentioned in the lead of this article itself. Then it is only fair to include what they have to say in response Zencv ^{Lets discuss} 17:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I would be willing to consider removing that sentence (I think the word "notable" is problematic). His reaction belongs in the relevant section. -- Nudve (talk) 17:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Lead should be more balanced IMO. Lead itself summarizes to conclude a highly charged and reasonably biased statement "The rise in reported incidents was particularly notable in France and the United Kingdom, countries with large Muslim and Jewish populations". I don't see any problem in having the response from Muslim community and European journalists in the lead. I'd urge you to leave it as it is Zencv ^{Lets discuss} 17:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm just saying that the "response" should correspond to the "accusation". Anyway, I'll wait for further input. -- Nudve (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

First, of all do not use a newsletter such as CounterPunch as a source. This is already the second time that you introduce unacceptable sources into this article. Please make yourself familiar with WP:RS if you have not yet done so. Responses of Muslim leaders and European journalists are ok in principle, if they are presented according to their notability. The sentence does not do that, in fact it is highly misleading. A single Muslim leader is many Muslim leaders, and the single Muslim leader also said "But it's not against Jews, it's against Israel.", what is in clear contrast with the fact that most attacks were on French Jews and not Israelis and Israeli installations. If you want to have a reaction of Muslim leaders, there is already a section on their reactions, and they condemn these attacks. Afroghost (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Counterpunch is used as a RS in many articles. Btw, when it comes to RS(atleast in this specific context), are you referring to plethora of blatantly pro-Israeli and pro-Jewish sites such as Ynet and ADL websites that are used as "RS" in this article? Zencv ^{Lets discuss} 18:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The paragraph in question is POV and unprofessional. Furthermore, its content is only tangentially related to the article, as Nudve pointed out. It should not be in the lede, and should only be in the article if changed to an NPOV tone and if it makes its relation to the article clear. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Zencv this is a warning. Your claim that ADL is used as a source is disingenuous, the are used as a soucre for only their own statement, not as a source for factual information. Ynet as the webpage of a major mainstream newspaper, the Yediot Ahronot is a reliable source, something that cannot be said about a newsletter. That should be obvious to anyone even remotely familiar with WP:RS, quote "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, such as The Washington Post, The Times in Britain, and The Associated Press.". Furthermore, as I said already above, a single Muslim leader is not the same as many Muslim leaders. Afroghost (talk) 19:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Afro, your warning would be discredited when you claim that ADL can be used as a primary source, but Counterpunch cant be used as a secondary source Zencv ^{Lets discuss} 20:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Your last comment only shows that you have absolutely no idea about basic Wikipedia policies. How many times do I have to remind you to read WP:RS and follow this policy? Afroghost (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Note to other editors: A 3RR report regarding Zencv repeated adding of unsourced information has been filed at [7]. Afroghost (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead. Would be an oppurtunity to see whether lies can succeed here. By the way, you are advised to read about primary sourcing policies of WP(in relation to ADL) Zencv ^{Lets discuss} 21:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Your claims about ADL as a source are completely bogus. ADL is only used a source for a quote by its director, and actually not even that, because at the same time Reuters is used a source, linking to the same speech. Afroghost (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying the factual material in the article cited to the ADL should be removed? Is the ADL not a RS for material? --Tom 21:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed the Slovenia section sourced to ADL per above. If this is in error, ect, please advise or find another source, thanks in advance, --Tom 16:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

Let the hopelessly lopsided lead be NPOVed. I have added an NPOV tag to bring into attention that article is being used as a platform to promote the view that any criticism of Israel is antiSemitism Zencv ^{Lets discuss} 19:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, you don't get it. Is there a single incident in this article that was a criticism of Israel and that was labelled as antisemitism? No, obviously not, and this has been discussed ad nauseam on this talk page and the deletion discussion page. You can not just claim it, you have to show at least a mininum of evidence for your claims. Afroghost (talk) 19:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Afroghost, for the reasons discussed above. The article does not discuss criticisms of Israel of of Jews, and therefore does not "promote the view that any criticism of Israel is antiSemitism", or any other view, for that matter. It discusses incidents that were described as antisemitic by reliable sources, and does not discuss anti-Israeli incidents. -- Nudve (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Deleted

I came here via 3RR; the simplest solution appears to be to delete this thing. Where are all the people who voted keep? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Um, since when is deleting the article a solution for 3RR violations? By the way, I am one of the people who voted keep, and I offered my opinion in the discussion above that relates to the edit war. What else am I supposed to do, enter the edit war? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Afroghost (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Deleting an article is not a commonly-accepted solution to 3RR issues. Dispute resolution is, though. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 14:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

New source of info?

Is there a way to get hold of publications arising from the inaugural conference of the Inter-parliamentary Coalition for Combating Antisemitism which took place a few days ago? This may help bolster sources. Chesdovi (talk) 23:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

95 antisemitic incidents according to London police

'You grow immune to the threat' Chesdovi (talk) 23:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Not antisemitic

This incident "A giant swastika was daubed opposite Istanbul's Israeli Consulate" is not antisemitic, it is a protest against Israel's actions by comparing them to that of Nazis. If it wasn't the Israeli Consulate but a synagogue, then it is arguable to keep the sentence. For now, the sentence should be removed. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

That is calling the wrong side Nazis [8]. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter which side you think is the Nazis. This incident is not antisemitic, thus it doesn't belong in the article. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Accusing a Jew (Israeli, or otherwise) of being a Nazi is inherently antisemitic. It belongs in the article, and there are sources that support it [9]. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You do realize that the editorial is only an opinion, and many people would disagree. Calling a Jewish person evil because he is Jewish is antisemitic and that is something that can be included. But it is a not a fact that comparing Israelis to Nazis is antisemitic. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 22:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The Jerusalem Post source supports the view that calling Israeli Jews (and other Zionists) Nazis is antisemitic, and the source is WP:reliable and WP:verify. There are other such sources too. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you seriously believe that the Jerusalem post is notable in a case such as this? If so, you are seriously bias. Calling jewish people 'Nazi' due to the recent slaughter of Palestinian people has come out of anger rather than hatred and/or anti-semitism. Provide the other sources and I will provide the sources that Wikipedia considers neutral that completely demolishes them, in Ireland alone! --Theosony (talk) 00:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

As stated in the article, the European Fundamental Rights Agency links this type of behavior with antisemitism. However, we don't list incidents of this type in the article, and we shouldn't in this case either. There is a summarizing sentence at the beginning of the "incidents" section, together with the view of the EFRA. That's enough in my opinion. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

What any single agency calls 'anti-semitic' is not notable unless it is backed up by several agencies. Comparing jewish Israelis to Nazis is wrong, but let's face it, you can't blame people for saying it out of anger. If every anti-Arab incident during the conflict was mentioned, Wikipedia would be a laughing stock because Jewish and Israeli people are both better supported and funded than Muslims and Palestinians. Calling a Jew a 'Nazi' is not anti-semitic, it is a human emotion. Anger at injustice and the unions' failure to be outspoken about the likes of hate-crimes by the Israeli state. Here are from references, one or two from the Israeli government's English website. They have links with the arts, politics and the rest. --Theosony (talk) 00:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain what your point is? I honestly don't understand. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, was replying to comment before yours. Added a colon extra. Although I suppose it can refer to your point as well if you read it.--Theosony (talk) 01:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Comparing Israel to Nazis is an interesting comparison. How many other countries have been labelled Nazi? Why is only the Nazi label used when condemning Israel, when there have been so many other evil reigmes that Israel could be compared to? Israel finds the use of Nazi imagery offensive in any setup, let alone it being used as tool with which to compare the Jewish state to. The people who use these signs know it offends Jews, that's why they use them. They are not merely trying to associate another evil reigime with Israel's actions. Chesdovi (talk) 09:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It is interesting, also, that many of those who equate Israel with Nazism, also are prone to statements such as "I like Hitler; he did the right thing with the Jews”. No doubt that is an expression of anger, but there is also no doubt that reliable sources (such as [10] and [11]) support the equating of Israel (and Zionists) with Nazis really is antisemitic. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not such actions aren't Antisemitic. They may well be. However, this article is attempting to document attacks, vandalism, harassment, etc. against Jews on the basis of them simply being Jews, not against Israel or Israeli government institutions. The important question here is not whether a particular incident is Antisemtic. The important question here is whether or not a particular incident is about attacks against Jews as a tribe/people/nation/whathaveyou rather than as citizens of a belligerent state (which happens to have a lot of Jews in it). Kari Hazzard (T | C) 14:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying it is ok when antisemitic attacks are directed against Israelis and Zionists, but that that others should be spared? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

No, consensus is that such incidents are not to be included in this article, and would raise far more NPOV concerns than there are already. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 20:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Then I may not understand the point you were making in the edit above this one. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

comparing israel to nazis isn't antisemitic any more than when the PM of Turkey compared israel's treatment of palestinians to that suffered by Jews during the Spanish Inquisition. these comparisons are made to highlight hypocrisies. even though they are often false analogies, they are criticisms of policy and not antisemitic attacks in themselves. a comparison would be to state that the puritans treated so-called 'witches' with the same disregard and persecution that they themselves had fled England to escape. untwirl (talk) 00:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Criticizing any Jews in antisemitic terms is antisemitic. That includes criticisms of the Jewish government put in antisemitic terms.

To give a parallel: if there had been an anti-Iraq demonstration in the USA, with charges based on anti-Islamic an/or anti-Arab content, the event could not be called anything but Islamophobia. If, on the other hand, the accusations against Iraq were "weapons of mass destruction", that would be a valid argument, even if it was untrue.

Since we have many good sources that say calling Jews 'Nazis' really is antisemitic, an act like painting a swastika on Istanbul's Israeli Consulate is definitely antisemitic. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Not quite. Saying that the Israeli government eats babies is not antisemitic (the motivation for that kind of statement is often antisemitism, but vicious criticism of Israel is not antisemitic in itself. Similarly, saying the Saudi Arabian government eats babies is not Islamophobic. Saying the Israeli/Saudi Arabian government eats babies because they're Jews/Muslims is antisemitic/Islamophobic. The tricky part is specifically when Nazi imagery is used to criticize Israel. Comparing Israel to any other evil regime, e.g. the Khmer Rouge would not be antisemitic, no matter how unwarranted the comparison was. Also, comparing Saudi Arabia to the Nazis would not be Islamophobic. But comparing Israel, which is known as the Jewish state, to the one evil regime that committed genocide against the Jewish people - that is considered antisemitic by some notable organizations, e.g. the EFRA, but not by others. Perhaps a comparable situation would be spraying Ottoman imagery on the Armenian embassy. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 13:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Saying that "Jews eat babies" is antisemitic and is part of an acknowledged vicious antisemitic accusation known as blood libel. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

i agree with jalepenos here. especially because he's referring to sources which label nazi comparisons as antisemitic and qualifies that some do and some don't. there is disagreement in reliable sources on whether or not comparisons with nazis are antisemitic. specific events should probably be left out and this debate explained briefly, as in "Several incidents occurred in which Israel was compared to Nazi Germany, but there is debate as to whether this constitutes antisemitism," with two citations, one to represent each side of the debate. untwirl(talk) 18:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

Because of the edit warring history of this article, I would suggest that editors discuss deletions and additions before making them. Otherwise this whole mess is going back to AN/I. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Jalapenos, the sentence that you have now twice deleted from the lead (without discussion) Many Muslim organisations noted that most of these incidents are anti-Israeli protests and people who condemn these are confusing legitimate criticism of Israel with antiSemitism. is supported in this sourced section of the article [12]. Please revert your deletion. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2009(UTC)

Not only does the section not support the sentence at all, it plainly contradicts it. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 18:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Threeafterthree, one reliable source is quite enough. On what grounds did you make this deletion [13]? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malcolm Schosha (talk • contribs)

See the section above titled Criticisms and condemnations. If I miss read using the ADL as a primary source then fine, otherwise maybe we could use a newspaper report, ect? Its probably me :) --Tom 18:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It is a reliable source on antisemitism, which is what is in question. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The ADL is a WP:reliable source on the subject of antisemitism, and is accepted as such in many articles, including the main article on antisemitism. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it a reliable source for reporting local "events" as is the case here or should we defer to news reports, ect? --Tom 18:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It is reliable as an opinion sources, but it is a partisan source, to be handled with care.--Cerejota (talk) 19:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It is a WP:reliable source on antisemitism, which is what the article is about. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Title change

Gilabrand, I can certainly see the reasoning behind shortening the title, but my problem with Antisemitism and the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict is that it reminds me of the old "the elephant and the Jewish question" joke, and could lead to this article actually becoming a POV fork. For example, Hamas is widely regarded to be an antisemitic organization (since their charter quotes from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, among other reasons), and I'm sure there are people who see the entire Israel-Hamas conflict as militant antisemitism and defense against it. With the new title we would have to include this (probably notable) POV, but that would necessarily involve giving prominence to that POV without giving the same prominence to opposing POVs. In other words, the new title is a bit like Male chauvinism and the American presidential elections, which, although it would certainly have merit, would not be a good title for an article. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 10:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a process that should be followed for moving an article, and it was not done. At minimum some discussion on the article talk page, as I requested in the section above, would be a necessity for an article with an edit war history. I have jury duty today, and will not have time to argue over this, but could someone move the article back till the move is discussed, per WP:RM? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not saying this is a good title, but it is certainly better than the old one, and I do not understand how changing it back will improve anything. Your elephant and the Jewish question analogy applies just as much to the old title. --Gilabrand (talk) 12:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you don't think this is a good title either, can you suggest one that is good? I don't think my analogy applies to the old title, because the old title created a more factual basis, i.e. it is fact that an exceptional number of antisemitic incidents occured during the conflict. However, my position is softening after having seen that there are quite a few "Antisemitism and X" articles on Wikipedia. In any case, it would be nice to get input from others on this. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Reverted Gilabrands title change. He's done the same thing in other articles. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

your snooty edit summary

Don't tell me what to do, or not do, on Wikipedia. You don't own this article or any others. If I have changed the name of an article, it is because it needs to be changed. If you have a better suggestion, you are welcome to do the same, but reverting it to the same crappy title is not helpful. --Gilabrand (talk) 05:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Gilabrand, please remain civil and help reach consensus. How about "Antisemitism related to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict"? I think it has the advantage of avoiding the obscure word "incidents" and can include events that are related, but perhaps took place a day after the operation ended. -- Nudve (talk) 05:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nudve,

Wise choice. (nb: Gilabrand is a woman.)

Ceedjee (talk) 10:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Left me a very nasty comment on my talk. :D I'm not going to revert his title change again, but if someone would like to get an admin feel free to. He's done this in other articles. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

יI left you the comment above, which is not any nastier than your edit summary. Where does it say that titles of articles can't be changed??? My change was made to draw attention to the fact that the title is problematic. Your change back to the old title is just spite.--Gilabrand (talk) 10:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You changed the title while users were disputing your criticisms and requesting suggestions. Without consensus, you unilaterally changed the title, which I promptly reverted. I was simply following standard protocol, you should be happy nobody else is complaining. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

And what criticisms were those? Sorry, but you must be mixing me up with someone else. I have never contributed to this page.--Gilabrand (talk) 10:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to retain the original title, but if someone wants to change it, that should be discussed, and decided, on the talk page before changing that, or anything else, in the article. That will make it possible avoid an outbreak of edit warring.

Article scope and quality

There has been a significant decrease in article quality, due in part to inclusion of partisan material, non-notable incidents, and an rather over-extended definition of anti-semitism. Opposition, even violent opposition, to the state of Israel and its action, is not widely understood as prima facie antisemitism, in particular in jurisdictions where antisemitism is a crime - attacking Jews as Jews is. For example, vadalism in Bolivia is not particulary anti-semitic, but pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel, the difference is lost only to partisans. Furthermore, use of primary source or partisan material is highly frowned upon: we should rely on non-partisan secondary sources as much as possible, using partisan sources only for verification. I will be removing egregious examples, but even in what I do not remove there are problems.--Cerejota (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

This is the introductory paragraph to the material that Cerejota has removed, claiming that chanting slogans in favor of gassing the Jews is a "non-incident." Anti-Semitic chants are included in the breakdown, and the account is based on a reliable source. It is not Cerejota's job to decide which incidents are "insignificant," and not an indication of anti-Semitism.

And I quote: "This section details incidents of physical attacks against Jewish persons and property, as well as discrimination and antisemitic statements by government officials. More minor incidents such as antisemitic harrassment and hate speech in the context of anti-Israel demonstrations were reported in Argentina, Australia, Canada, and Turkey. Nazi imagery, offensive to most Jews, and slogans suggesting comparison between the Holocaust and Israel's current actions were used in anti-Israel rallies across Europe. The European Fundamental Rights Agency states that “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis” is one of several possible manifestations of antisemitism with regard to Israel. Most protesters, however, rejected any accusation of antisemitism. Antisemitic statements have also increased on blogs and internet forums."--Gilabrand (talk) 13:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

This is all very interesting, but it is beyond the scope of this article. For example, the assertion that “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis” is antisemitism is a highly disputed and controversial one. NPOV would require that an NPOV encyclopedia article covering "Antisemitic incidents" define such incidents in a neutral manner, not basing itself in disputed, controversial or otherwise non-neutral definitions of what "Antisemitic incidents" are.

Minute coverage of random incidents is not what this article should be about, and that has been the general consensus, in discussion and in forming the article to keep it from being deleted. Many of us supported and defended this article on the condition it wouldn't become a WP:COATRACK to assert a controversial definition of antisemitism, instead of the generally accepted one - and editors responded positively to this consensus. Please do not break this, or it could have unintended consequenses.

Antisemitism is not whatever is offensive to Jews, just like racism is not whatever is offensive to people of color: antisemitism is particular actions that create insecurity and real harm from an objective point of view. Shouting a few slogans in a protest is offensive, but hardly harmful - painting swastikas in a synagogue is antisemitism. Or, perhaps, you forget, that when everything is antisemitism, nothing is antisemitism.

Hence, I have reverted you. --Cerejota (talk) 13:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

This is getting more bizarre by the minute. You have reverted ME??? I did not write a single sentence of this article. Everybody reacts from the gut without looking at the facts. The stuff above appears IN the article.--Gilabrand (talk) 14:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Why bizarre? I reverted your reversion of me. I didn't address the stuff above in terms of editing - I did argue that there is a difference between mentioning a controversial perspective in an article, and adopting that perspective as guide to edit other parts of the article. I hope this clears it up for you.--Cerejota (talk) 14:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Gals, please, let's wait for a consensus before hitting the backspace button. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

brewcrewer - please hold other editors who are not participating in discussion to the same standard as you seem to hold me. cerejota has provided ample justification for keeping the scope of this article within certain boundaries. in fact, it was not deleted because of his efforts to keep it from becoming a pov fork. i'll search the archives if necessary, but i believe consensus was that this is a good idea. untwirl(talk) 16:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Cerejota, you mentioned several different types of problems you perceive in the article. Can you give examples so we know what exactly you mean? It was already established above that hate speech would be briefly summarized at the beginning of the incidents section, but that we would not describe each individual incident of this type. It was also established that comparison of Israel with the Nazis is considered by some notable POVs to be antisemitism, but not by others. If some notable POVs consider zigs to be wugs, the article on wugs should contain a discussion of zigs, stating that some consider them to be wugs, and others don't. This is the case here. What was discussed above can be rediscussed and different conclusions should be reached, but the previous discussion should be mentioned, and I think its conclusion was reasonable. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to believe the entire paragraph qualifies for deletion. Cerejota has listed several inflammatory accusations without listing specific issues. If you think something is wrong with the paragraph, be explicit, and avoid using emotional context or typical "POV-pushing" accusations. The sources are reliable, users are merely paraphrasing from those sources, and your formula for what constitutes "antisemitism" is largely bogus IMO. It's extremely difficult to sift through partisan and non-partisan sources because it is all perspective. For example, we use AJ in 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict, even though it is a blatant partisan source. As well all know, if a reference meets RS standard, then any opinion of "partisan, slanted, fringe theories, POV, etc.." is irrelevant. Consider this: applying your reasoning would force us to delete half of the material in controversial articles. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Dude, chill, I have neither accused anyone, nor been inflammatory. Please, abandon your penchant for the histrionic with me ;) And no, the definition of anti-semitism I have given is the generally accepted one. Some of the partisan sources used disagreed with it. --Cerejota (talk) 01:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

My bad. I forgot the smiley faces. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Cerejota that "“drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis” is antisemitism is a highly disputed and controversial one." Nazis and antisemites dispute it regularly. That said, I'm not sure we can fold the fringe ideas those groups hold into a useful policy for this article. IronDuke 15:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

since your first apearance here is to revert me and to make a thinly veiled accusation that those here and elsewhere who dispute that are "Nazis and antisemites" can only be viewed as disruptive. untwirl(talk) 15:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear. What does it mean when a disruptive editor call another editor disruptive? Is that like a double negative? IronDuke 19:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

i suggest you strike your inflammatory "nazis and antisemites" comment if you want to be taken seriously here. untwirl(talk) 20:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that you educate yourself further on these issues, and my comment will not seem as strange. Feel free to take a break from editing in this area while you do so. IronDuke 20:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

oh, it doesn't seem strange at all. in fact am quite used to this type of approach by editors who support your pov. thats why wiki has these nifty little policies called WP:NPOV and WP:NPA. feel free to take a break and study them, along with the arbcom restrictions placed on this area. untwirl(talk) 20:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah! I didn't think it would seem strange to you, and I thank you for the correction. IronDuke 21:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I have not seen that to be in dispute in the editing here. The real issues hinge on the efforts of Cerejota to narrow the definition of what is an antisemitic event in a way that would exclude virtually any demonstration directed at and criticizing Israel, even if there is clearly antisemitic content in the event. This effort includes an effort to exclude the ADL as a WP:reliable source for this article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Incident In Bolivia

User:Cerejota removed this sourced material with the edis summary "not anti-semitic, only source partisan". While the JTA is not the best source, they're only quoting a bill, sponsored by Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.), who also called the incident to be anti-semitic. See [14]. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It has been called antisemitic, but is it? The vandalism took place at "Plaza Israel" and the Star of David and Judaic murals there were most probably reprersenting Israel and not Jews per se. It was not a Jewish monument, rather an Israeli one. I am not of the opinion that every attack against Israel is anti-semitic, especially here, where no anti-semitic slogans were sprayed. Others however, who view Israel and Judaism synonymous, would probably view it as anti-semitic. Chesdovi (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The incident is also reported here. Does anyone know exactly what this "Plaza Israel" is? -- Nudve (talk) 16:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't, but did notice that Washington Post deemed it anti-semitic. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Can someone google translate this [15]? It may shed some light on the matter. Chesdovi (talk) 17:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

this is exactly the reason why this article was nominated for deletion. graffiti and vandalism of an israeli monument with antisemitic phrases would have been an antisemitic incident. writing "plaza palestina" is an obvious protest against israeli actions in this conflict, and uses no antisemitic language or canards. perhaps the editors in favor of this can explain precisely what they believe qualifies this as antisemitism. untwirl(talk) 17:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Untwirl's speculation is false, as violent actions against Israelis were systematically removed from the article before it was nominated for deletion. In keeping with this standard, the Bolivia incident should remain if it was against Jews and should go if it was against Israel. We don't yet know if the monument in "Plaza Israel" is a Jewish or Israeli symbol, but until we find out, we can give the Washington Post the benefit of the doubt, which (as brewcrewer alluded to) called the incident a "troubling sign of antisemitism" here. I have also not seen anyone bring evidence that JTA is any more partisan than Al Jazeera. I'm not saying it isn't, just that I currently have no reason to believe that it is. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

your interpretation is, i'm sorry to say, false. first - this is not a "violent action" against israelis or jews. second, the nomination for deletion specifically stated, "the article takes it for granted that those attacks are Antisemitic attacks," which is my principle objection to the addition of this incident. it is a political, not antisemitic, protest that we are referring to here. it belittles the abhorrence of true antisemitism to define political protest against the state of israel as antisemitism. as other users have said, "when everything is antisemitism, nothing is." untwirl(talk) 20:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Untwril, I think you are quite mistaken. It is antisemitic, and I think obviously so. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

We don't know yet if the vandalized monument was Jewish or Israeli. We do know that the Washington Post called the incident a sign of antisemitism. If it turns out the monument was Israeli and there was nothing anti-Jewish per se about the incident, it should not be here, even if the Washington Post says otherwise, in keeping with the policy we've followed until now. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

If the Washington Post calls it antisemitic all brilliant rationalizations to the contrary are nothing more then some good ol original research.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I have tried translating the above article. The result for "mientras que los anaqueles y paredes aledañas amanecieron empapelados con leyendas antisemitas" at Google is: while the shelves and walls wallpapers morning near captions Semitic; Free translation.com: while the anaqueles and walls aledaas woke up wallpapers with antisemitic legends and Yahoo Babel: whereas the shelves and bordering walls dawned paperings with anti-semitic legend. I think it means that bills containing anti-semitic slogans were pasted on the walls of the monument. What these slogans said is not mentioned. Chesdovi (talk) 22:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

here is a google translation of a different article [[16]] which says explicitly that the language was against the "hebrew state" and in favor of palestians. another source stated that an american flag was burned there as well. this really seems to be an obvious example of opposition to actions of the state of israel and not hatred of all jews or demonization. its not even one of those "fine line" contoversies like comparisons with nazi policy. untwirl(talk) 22:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jalapenos. Of course this incident is related to Israel's actions, otherwise it would be irrelevant. But the test is not the perpetrator's ulterior motive but whether the act was committed against Jews or against Zionists/Israelis. -- Nudve (talk) 06:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

If you guys can trust me, "Plaza Israel" is not a Jewish symbol, but a symbol of friendship with Israel. There are several such plazas in La Paz, they are roundabouts that get named for people and countries Wikimapia satellite image of Plaza Israel. There are other such Plazas, like "Plaza España" (Plaza Spain - which is larger). I want to stress that I am in whole agreement with the spirit that Jalapenos expresses, which is one consentious rather than contentious editing, and one based on the consensus that led to this article being kept. This was a tight keep AfD, and this article deserves to exist, but only if it doesn't become a WP:COATRACK, and the way to ensure this is to be careful with what definition of "antisemitic incident" is used. Its a basic NPOV issue, but also a basic UNDUE issue.

La Prensa source that Chesdovi posted headline says "Plaza Israel suffers attack by presumed antisemites", and the machine translation is more or less correct of the relevant paragraph. If this is used as the source, I have no problem - I'll even help with the tranlation if needed. JTA is, well, iffy in this case. La Prensa is a tabloid, but it is an RS as much as say, the NY Daily News is.--Cerejota (talk) 14:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

the la prensa article i provided above says specifically that the language was against the "hebrew state" and in favor of palestians. it doesn't mention antisemitism. the other one mentions "presumed antisemitism." if blatant antisemitsm, widely reported and fitting the noncontroversial definition as such, is the standard for this article, then this incident doesn't seem to meet that bar. untwirl(talk) 18:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect, the second one specifically says that "antisemitic posters" were left. I am a native speaker of Spanish, so I know. I am still not sold on this, because instead of the what the posters say, we have a potentially biased interpretation of what they said, that contradicts even the articles' headline and further elaboration - it feels like bad editing, not a statement of fact.

This is why partisan sources are not good: they either qualify without explanation, or when an explanation is given the explanation is not one widely held but part of the partisan agenda, and hence biased. And this is true across the board.

If we can find another RS that is not partisan that actually describes what the posters said, I would have no objection with this section being included. --Cerejota (talk) 19:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

okay. i'll definitely take your word on the spanish - most of what i know is from restaurant kitchens and schoolyards. ;) it might help here if we made note of what exactly is the standard for inclusion in this article. i thought it was incidents that target jews in a general sense, not ones which only and specifically target israel and their action. maybe this is a stupid question but an important one i think. thanks. untwirl(talk) 19:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Incidents that directly target Israel for criticism can still be obviously antisemitic if there is antisemitic content in the criticism. So, for instance, even if the demonstration was right in front of an Israeli embassy, and even if there were calls to stop the attack on Gaza; if demonstrators were using swastikas, or saying things like "Hitler had the right idea", then the conclusion is that the demonstration was antisemitic. Mevin(ah)? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

perhaps that's why i said we don't include incidents that "which only and specifically target israel and their action," and do include those which meet a noncontroversial definition of antisemitism. untwirl(talk) 16:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

If it was directed at Israel, but the was antisemitic also, there is no reason to exclude those events from the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree fully with that. However, I am not for inclusion of merely described as antisemitic. There is a difference between the posters are antisemitic and the posters said "hitler had the right idea", the first I would include if verified by a reliable secondary non-partisan source (say the BBC) the later if verified by any reliable source, even partisan. Lets not be disingenuous: for some all criticism of Israel is antisemitic: you have things like new antisemitism or the aberration that is self-hating Jew. But this is not a normative view, and it is clear that wikipedia is to examine normative views. --Cerejota (talk) 12:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

notice on talk head

I put this notice:

In the talk page header based on the suggestion from Untwirl. The intent is to notify editors that there was a long systemic discussion that lead to the existence of this article, and led many editors to change their !votes in the discussion, which was well participated and a productive one - and in which the article was changed significantly, including the article's name. Notifying editors of this is in our interest, as it makes for a productive editing environment. While AfD's are part of the consensus process, and "consensus can change", the consequence of changing the cosnensus of an AfD discussion might lead to a WP:DRV and possibly a further AfD. As someone who finds the topic notable (but barely warranting its own article), I want to ensure the conditions that led the community to restore this article remain in place. This is about being productive editors, instead of COATRACK warriors.--Cerejota (talk) 13:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments on an AfD should not be used in an attempt to influence editorial discussions and article content. Even Arbatration Committee decisions can not decide article content. Article content always is decided by editorial discussion. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• NB: Cerejota, if you do not remove the tag you have restored to the top of the page, I will soon take the issue to AN/I, as an attempt to violate WP:Consensus. You are attempting to influence content by adding a tag of your own creation. Of course, the information about the two failed AfDs should be there, as is normal. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Do it. If you cannot understand that the motivation is to have less WP:DRAMA and not more, that's your prerogative as an editor. However, I find you trying to create a quid pro quo much more disruptive.--Cerejota (talk) 02:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with the template, which is fairly common sense, except that it's a bit ambiguous: if the ADL called something antisemitic, and the BBC reported that the ADL called it antisemitic, would writing "the ADL called it antisemitic" violate the template? Not clear. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Jalapenos, you were central to defining the consensus, so I thought it would be obvious: of course the BBC saying that the "ADL says X is antisemitic" is acceptable. In fact, it is acceptable to say "ADL says X is antisemitism". I have no problem with using, under due weight, partisan sources if they are attributed.

I consider that the most POV and contradictory item that I find acceptable under the current consensus, the stuff on Venezuela, is shaped correctly - it is well sourced, balanced, and factual (I would reword, not remove, some of the POV criticism of Chavez tho). There are some extreme POVs expressed, but they are direct quotes from a prominent figure. I guess you know by know that I am not focused on the narrative wars, but on the encyclopedic value: so I am perfectly capable of accepting stuff that is not really to my taste if it is done in a well sourced, balanced, and factual manner. And of course, with and eye to WP:COATRACK which is a real danger with these types of articles (ie articles on attacks against specific groups). --Cerejota (talk) 02:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It is obvious to me that it's OK, and I assumed you would agree; it's just that the template could be worded better, as it could be understood to be discouraging that kind of thing. As for the coatrack issue, this has only recently become a serious danger to the article. Previously, the danger was from editors who didn't like the topic trying to sabotage it either consciously or unconsciously. I will of course fight against the new danger with the same vigor that I fought against the old one (well, almost the same). Jalapenos do exist (talk) 03:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

i agree that it still seems a bit ambiguous, however i think noncontroversial is easy to recognize. i think excluding those which only and specifically target israel and their action is a good application of this standard. i dont think any editors, no matter how partisan, are going to see daubing of synagogues and attacking individual jews while shouting antisemitic slur as a controversial definition of antisemitism. for this reason, i think partisan sources should be avoided as much as possible, unless their accusations are noncontroversial and they are backed up by other, non-partisan cources. in those instances, we should use the nonpartisan source for the article. untwirl(talk) 16:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

If the criticism of Israel is put in antisemitic terms, it is antisemitic. Also, if you want to classify, for instance, the ADL as partisan, that is not acceptable because the ADL is a WP:reliable source on the subject of antisemitism. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

if we are discussing noncontroversial definitions of antisemitism (and we are), i'm afraid adl doesnt make the cut. see [Criticism of ADL] untwirl(talk) 21:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Criticism does not invalidate ADL. Don't be silly. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

criticism of their controversial definition of antisemitism certainly does apply to the nonpartisan and noncontroversial standard that we have here. untwirl(talk) 22:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It is not a silly suggestion. It is precisely the level of criticism in other RS that defines the quality of an RS. Hence the BBC is better than the NYT which in turn is better than MSNBC, Al Jazeera, or FOX News and so on. The ADL is a partisan organization with a clear, open and transparent partisan agenda. This is not a silly proposition, it is as sober as saying that the sky is blue, or the earth is round. What is indeed silly is calling other editors silly, specially when your argument doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. Since you are apparently so fond of noticeboarding, you could take it to WP:RSN. Were, as I recall, the general consensus is that it is a partisan source, but very relevant in these topics. I accept that consensus. And probably should you.--Cerejota (talk) 02:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Malcolm here. Every organization is criticized by its opponents, and the fact that the ADL is too says nothing about its reliability or notability. The ADL is a perfectly respectable human rights organization. It is probably biased towards finding the kinds of problems it deals with (in our case, antisemitism), just as any human rights organization is, and presumably it has a pro-Jewish bias as well. But it is not a blatantly or extremely partisan group. For things that are not subject to interpretation, it is a typical primary source that can be used with caution, and for things that are subject to interpretation it is a notable POV. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 03:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but comparing the ADL to say, Human Rights First or Human Rights Watch is not really true. While both HRF and HRW are controversial in their own way - as any organization that deals in human rights will be - they are focused on human rights without distinction. The ADL, on the other hand, is principally a Jewish organization, that has evolved, in its history, into a pro-Israel organization. It is partisan in the context of this conflict and the articles around it. That is a major difference: if this were an article around, say, lynchings in the South of the USA, the ADL would be a reliable source without qualification. But since this deals with situations in which you have people arguing that any criticism of Israel is antisemitism, something that is not accept by most people, and you have the ADL on record accepting that view, then their utility as a factual reliable source comes into question. For example, they might say in a report "plastered antisemitic posters" while the BBC might report, on the same posters "posters that said Israel out of Gaza!". It is precisely were these type of nuances exist where you have to be careful with sources, even those of the highest reliability. For example, one fo the controversies around the ADL is precisely the violation of huma rights as aprt of anti-communist activities in the early 1990s. This is not a criticism, but a well-know, well documented fact. Again, I do not dispute that we can use it, its just that a rossy picture of a disinterested human rights organization is disingenous at best.--Cerejota (talk) 10:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to find the source of the statement in the tag: This article's keep consensus was based on accepting a non-controversial definition of "antisemitic incident" Just where is it? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Read the first AfD and the WP:DRV, and specially the changed votes in the second AfD. There where indeed some deletionists, and POV deletes, but there where also POV keeps, and a whole lot of COATRACKing going on. Jalapenos and Chesdovi did an excellent job in moving consensus. Consensus can change, no doubt, but it can have unexpected results. I just want people to think twice before going down unproductive roads. I no way it influences consensus, it makes clear the current consensus. --Cerejota (talk) 02:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, Jalapenos, I hear ya, how about this:

How about this?--Cerejota (talk) 09:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Cerejota, now you have changed the tag to: This article's keep consensus was based on accepting a non-controversial definition of "antisemitic incident". But I still do not see what you have taken it from. Could you give a diff, or at least some sort of link to the second AfD, that supports what you have written into in the tag? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I already mentioned to you how you can examine this conclusion. Unless, of course, you have a relevant argument against it? In other words, do you argue it is not a truthful view of how the consensus progressed? I mean, as an active participant in all of the processes, I can tell you that the job Jalapeno and Chesdovi did to rescue the article was precisely addressing this concern. --Cerejota (talk) 15:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to figure out why you think you are justified in amending WP:reliable. So far you have supplied nothing at all. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

You are being silly, I am trying not such thing.--Cerejota (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I am in favor of keeping the tag. I perceive a lot of WP:SYNTH going on: protests against Israel or anti-Israeli vandalism being posted as examples of anti-Semitism. (See above discussion about Antisemitic_incidents_in_the_U.S.). Implied incidents of anti-Semitism shouldn't cut it. I would also be in favor of clarifying that on the tag, which is a little vague.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 21:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

bad faith edit summary

I have been preoccupied with other wikipedia things, and had not realized the bad faith edit summary when removing the tags that "brewcrewer" left. When I tagged the article, I clearly stated the reasons in talk, and started a thread. Alleging that it was drive-by tagging was leaving a false and misleading edit summary. I have restored the tags until which time changes that fix the issues enumerated are fixed.--Cerejota (talk) 13:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You have seldom engaged in discussion of your edits before making changes to the article. Perhaps never. Your typical approach is to post a comment here, and then make changes without waiting for any discussion. Please stop accusing others of what you do yourself, and on a larger scale. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

malcolm- cerejota has never made a bad faith edit summary (that i am aware of). if you have diffs to back this up, take it to an/i, otherwise stop making personal attacks. untwirl(talk) 14:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

If you re-read what Cerejota wrote above, you will see that he claims to have discussed changes, although the discussions always come after the changes, because he does not wait for the opinions of others before making changes. That is problematic. Capisce?

Please stop whining. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

please stop being contentious, disruptive, and misrepresenting what other editors say. if you read again you will see that you are using a straw man argument (a real one, not the misunderstood definition used by some editors) in stating that he "claims to have discussed changes." he never makes that claim. he clearly stated that he tagged the article, "stated the reasons in talk, and started a thread." in addition to that, you use another straw man, "stop accusing others of what you do yourself." he is not accusing brewcrewer of "failing to "engage in discussion of (his) edits before making changes to the article," as you say. he specifically accuses him of making a "bad faith edit summary." in addition, your usage of the terms, "capisce" and "stop whining" is uncivil. untwirl(talk) 14:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

My point was that he, and you, have made many deletions and changes without discussing them first, although you insist that other editors should not do what you, and Cerejota, do yourselves. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

provide quotes or diffs of your tireless assertions. i just addressed this very issue. untwirl(talk) 16:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It does not matter if you have addressed any or every issue. You and Cerejota continue to make changes to the article without any agreement on the changes. At the same time you call for other editors to engage in discussions, while you continue to rely on assertions. Stop making changes to the article by deleting sourced material without agreement on the appropriateness of the changes. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

again, read the post. this section was a complaint against bad faith in an edit summary, not "a call for other editors to engage in discussion." you are wrong. let it drop. untwirl(talk) 17:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Malcom: Please read WP:BRD, you seem to have misunderstood how Wikipedia's editing process works. PROTIP: Boldness comes before revert and discussion.--Cerejota (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Scale

I've had a quick read through the article. One of the things that struck me was that the Scale section could perhaps be tweaked to provided clearer more direct WP:V compliance. The sources are there but they aren't always clearly linked to statements in the article. For example, statements like "The bulk of the incidents were carried out in Western Europe and were led by local Muslims" aren't directly associated with their source, JC.com so the source of this information is a bit ambiguous/could be clearer. Just a thought. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The sentence you mention is a quote from the cited RS. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 18:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know. Perhaps it's just my short attention span or the way I read language but by the time I reach that sentence in the Scale section the link to the source of the information is broken for me because the information isn't explicitly associated with it's source. Anyway, the refs are there as I said. People can figure it out for themselves I guess. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Blanket revert by editor not active in talk

re: iron duke's revert

of course its antisemitic. the question here is notability. is it really notable to include what "some"(note weasel word) demonstrators shouted? i agree with the consensus that this article shouldn't include small details of hate speech by "some demonstrators." though, i could be convinced otherwise, if there were further actions or a measurement other than 'some'. what about the rest of the material you restored? untwirl(talk) 15:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

If the media coverage of the event included the antisemitic content of the demonstration, then it was clearly judged to be notable. Instead of discussing these issues you have engage in edit warring to the extent that I placed the 3RR warning on your user page. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

for someone who has reverted 3 times to put a 3rr warning on the page of someone who reverted twice is a little disingenuous at best. untwirl(talk) 16:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Does that mean you do not intend to discuss the issues? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

oh, please. i began this section to discuss the issues, and stated my position. why not let others weigh in, instead of making unsupported accusations of 3rr? untwirl(talk) 18:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Untwirl, I'm afraid you are quite correct. "Some" is a weasel word (shudder) and the extraordinarily naughty International Herald Tribune, reliable source that it is, had the gross temerity to violate a Wikipedia style guidline. I'm not sure what we do here... someone wanna get Jimbo in on this? At this rate, we shall have anarchy. IronDuke 19:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

if you have time between your wonderfully witty repartee, perhaps you can address the issues here. there is consensus not to include incidents which use a controversial definition of antisemitism, or nonnotable ones. if editors are going to use this article as a pov fork to back your view that anyone who disputes your definition of antisemitism (chomsky, et al) are "Nazis and antisemites," then this article deserves to be deleted. untwirl(talk) 20:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

And what, pray, is a controversial definition of antisemitism? IronDuke 20:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

well, let's see, one example would be that which you have already agreed to above: "I agree with Cerejota that "“drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis” is antisemitism is a highly disputed and controversial one." another example would be incidents which only and specifically target israel and its actions. this seems to have majority consensus. untwirl(talk) 03:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Right. I was agreeing in the sense that Nazis and antisemites find it controversial. I assume you do not share their views. Can you tell me, specifcally, what examples of controversial AS you are talking about, and who calls them controversial? For example, when you reverted Malcolm, deleting the (reliably sourced) assertion that demonstrators chanted "Jews to the gas," as "per noncontroversail [sic] definition" what definition was it that you were thinking of, and who subscribes to such a definition? IronDuke 19:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

you are correct that i didn't completely address all of the issues in my edit summary, however, i have done so repeatedly here.
one more time for the hard-of reading:
this was removed due to using a controversial def of antisemitism:
" In Irvine, California posters were pasted at Beth Jacob orthodox congregation. One poster proclaimed, "Gaza -- The New Shoah" and a second read, "Hamas Recognises Israeli Genocide." Similar posters were found on the same day at the nearby reform congregation Shir Ha-Ma'alot.Gaza conflict means local anti-Semitism, JFS gets new logo, 09-01-2009]
and the "hamas, hamas.." quote was removed due to lack of notability.
jalapenos has brought more information which proved the notability of the second case.
your invocation of godwins law notwithstanding, your agreement that there is controversy regarding those interpretations nonetheless supports that those incidents fall within the realm of controversed interpretations, regardless of your personal opinion of those who hold those beliefs.

Hard of reading? Hard of writing, it would seem. I'm glad to see you now undertand that "Jews to the gas" is antisemitic, full stop. As for comparing Jews to Nazis (speaking of Godwin's law) why yes, that is antisemitic, too. And again -- sources to dispute this? Do you have any at all? That you would assert Nazis believing comparisons of Jews to Nazis are not antisemitic means that it is therefore somehow controversial strongly suggests you shouldn't be editing this article, or any related subject. IronDuke 03:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

please refrain from the drama. i said no such thing. i simply remarked that your ideological labeling of those who disagree with you does not prove that those labels are accurate, but your statement did corroborate the existence of controversy. so, your opinion is that only nazis or antisemites dispute that those comparisons constitute antisemtism. just to be clear. are you saying that Matan Vilnai, Israel's deputy defence minister, was being antisemitic last year when he made this comparison of present day israeli policy with the holocaust:"The more Qassam [rocket] fire intensifies and the rockets reach a longer range, they will bring upon themselves a bigger shoah because we will use all our might to defend ourselves,"? untwirl(talk) 20:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you really not get the in-group/out-group dynamic in terms of when slurs can and cannot be used? Because I'd be happy to explain it. IronDuke 22:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

so you admit, then, that there are instances when "drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis' is not antisemitism? and that people other than "nazis and antisemites" might make these comparisons and dispute their antisemitic nature? untwirl(talk) 23:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Right, that'd be a "no" to my question, then. Let me break it down this way. A white person may not simply go up to a black person and say "Nigger, get out of my way." At least, not without being thought racist. That a black person may do so to another black person (without being thought racist) doesn't mean that it is not a racist thing to say. Clearer? (And this isn't even taking into account that any individual Jew, say, could him or herself have antisemitic feelings.) And again: do you have any sources that dispute this idea, that comparing Jews to Nazis is antisemitic? It's highly controversial, apparently, so I'm sure there are many. IronDuke 00:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

i'll assume for the sake of your analogy that you meant " (And this isn't even taking into account that any individual Jew black person, say, could him or herself have antisemitic racist feelings.) " your addition effectively cancels the theory you seem to be purporting: that if a member of the group (a jewish person) says it, then it isn't antisemitic, but that if someone outside the group (non-jewish) says it, then it is. so, then, what was your point? it seems you added this in to preemptively declare that certain jewish people could say it with clean conscience, while nullifying other jewish people as harboring antisemitic feelings. however you've broken your own in/out group rule here by parenthetically adding exceptions. who decides who these exceptions are, which jew "loves" jews and which "hates" himself? just because you agree with one side doesn't mean there isn't another side who disputes it, hence the controversy. as for people who dispute it, try chomsky, falk, anyone their opponents consider 'new antisemites'. or you could read this article[[17]] for a more informed view of those who dispute it. i personally believe that particular incident is antisemitic, especially because it was on a jewish institution and not an israeli one. my point is just that it is controversial, and to keep this article focused, we have previously agreed to use a noncontroversial one. untwirl(talk) 17:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Your “translation” of my comments is quite wrong, though I think I understand why. I was jumping from my analogy back to our case in point, thinking you’d be able to follow it without my needing a transitional phrase. Clearly, I erred in this assumption. There is, of course, no contradiction whatever in my post. I don’t know that Jews may call each other Nazis with a “clean conscience” any more than I know that blacks may call each other the N-word with a clean conscience. I believe there are those (inside each in group) who would object. Who decides who exceptions to this rule are? Well, you bring up Chomsky, which is a good example. He has been accused of being an antisemite and is virulently anti-Israel, so that’d be a case of a person who apparently isn’t one. Did you have a good source that refutes the notion that comparing Jews to Nazis is antisemitic? It didn’t seem to be on the page of the article you linked to. Was it somewhere else in that article? IronDuke 18:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) i see - it is you who decides who the exceptions are. as i predicted, you nullify the opinions of those you disagree with. i don't really have time to dig up articles just so that you can attack the authors. however, you have already stated that you agree that this is "highly disputed and controversial", albeit by those you consider to be nazis and antisemites. i don't see why you insist on me finding sources to support a point you have already conceded. is your point that chomsky is an exception to the ingroup because he criticizes israel's policies, and for that reason supporters of israel's policies have called him a 'new antisemite? this is the problem with conflating israel with all jewish people. there is a very active left wing and progressive segment of israel and jewish people worldwide that makes those same comparisons (see gush shalom) and denies that they are antisemitic. i suppose you will say that they are all nazis and antisemites, but even if you do, your opinion doesn't negate the existence of controversy and differing opinions. untwirl(talk) 19:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you "see" nothing of the sort, and neither have you predicted anything. "this is the problem with conflating israel with all jewish people..." You are having a conversation with someone, but it is not me; please focus. Is it your contention, then, that even if the only people who accept the Jew/Nazi comparison are themselves Nazis or antisemites, we should consider the comparison "controversial?" (And by the way, can you provide a source for any such Nazis or antisemites who consider it controversial?) IronDuke 20:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

you are either deliberately misunderstanding me or having trouble reading and responding to what i wrote. your statement that chomsky "has been accused of being an antisemite and is virulently anti-Israel, so that’d be a case of a person who apparently isn’t one," does exactly what i thought you were doing. you declared that members of the group (jews) can used a loaded term (or in this case, comparison) with impunity, without being racist/antisemitic. then you qualify that by saying some of those members may be racist/antisemitic themselves and therefore are exceptions to this rule, thus giving yourself carte blanche to disqualify any source i might provide as being an antisemite. according to you, being jewish isnt enough to make you a member of the "in group", nor is being israeli. it seems that only being a supporter of israeli policy would fit into your narrow view of who could make these comparisons without being antisemitic., hence "conflating israel with all jewish people."

your loaded question, "Is it your contention, then, that even if the only people who accept the Jew/Nazi comparison are themselves Nazis or antisemites, we should consider the comparison "controversial?"" is a fallacious misrepresentation of what i have said repeatedly, similar to me asking you if you've stopped beating your wife yet. (and, that would be the second time you've viciously misrepresented my statements, as in this straw man, "That you would assert Nazis believing comparisons of Jews to Nazis are not antisemitic means that it is therefore somehow controversial strongly suggests you shouldn't be editing this article, or any related subject.") i have never asserted either of those things. please provide a diff if you feel differently.

these are the actual statements i have made on this subject:

"(you claim that) anyone who disputes your definition of antisemitism (chomsky, et al) are "Nazis and antisemites,"
"your agreement that there is controversy regarding those interpretations nonetheless supports that those incidents fall within the realm of controversed interpretations, regardless of your personal opinion of those who hold those beliefs."
"your ideological labeling of those who disagree with you does not prove that those labels are accurate, but your statement did corroborate the existence of controversy."
"(do you admit that) people other than "nazis and antisemites" might make these comparisons and dispute their antisemitic nature? "

my contention is, once again, your assertion that someone (chomsky, falk, bishop tutu) is an antisemite/nazi does not make it true.

untwirl(talk) 03:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow. You have missed so many points in that post above, I’m really at a loss where to begin. But I won’t embarrass you by taking them apart one by one. I’ll try to keep this simple. I asked you a direct question: "Is it your contention, then, that even if the only people who accept the Jew/Nazi comparison are themselves Nazis or antisemites, we should consider the comparison "controversial?" You replied – or rather, failed to reply – by suggesting that I was asking you a “When did you stop beating your wife” type comment. I understand that this a popular talk page trope on WP, but most of the people who use it understand what it means – you do not appear to. The wife-beating thing is a form of begging the question; I’m not doing that: I’m merely asking you an incredibly simple, direct question. If the answer is no, say so. If yes, say yes. You admit to having written “your agreement that there is controversy regarding those interpretations nonetheless supports that those incidents fall within the realm of controversed interpretations…” I admitted that only in the sense of the overwhelming number of times those commenst are made they are made by Nazis and antisemites. I’ve made that very clear, and yet you keep acting as though this is a point in your favor. It is – but only if the answer to my question above is a yes. Is it?

Oh, one more thing: you wrote “my contention is, once again, your assertion that someone (chomsky, falk, bishop tutu) is an antisemite/nazi does not make it true." That sentence is gloriously, wonderfully, abundantly false -- indeed, it's a perfect example of what you were struggling to refer to in your wife-beating comment, and also a truly vicious strawman and gross misrepresentation of what I wrote. Please try to 1. Relax. 2. Focus. 3. Answer the questions I ask you directly. IronDuke 03:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

1. my statement was neither vicious nor misrepresentative of your logic. i inserted in parentheses my examples of those who have used the comparison, one of whom you previously dismissed as antisemitic, if you don't believe the others were antisemitic in their comparisons, please say so. the rest of my statement "your assertion that someone is an antisemite/nazi does not make it true" is simply a statement of fact. where is the straw man or false assumption?

2. if you have been grossly misrepresented you should be able to point out where and clarify your argument, as i have done with your straw man: "That you would assert Nazis believing comparisons of Jews to Nazis are not antisemitic means that it is therefore somehow controversial strongly suggests you shouldn't be editing this article, or any related subject." that was a vicious misrepresentation that i had already set straight. i stated repeatedly that there were people other than nazis and antisemites who used it, i have never asserted that Nazis believing comparisons of Jews to Nazis are not antisemitic means that it is controversial. i also provided quotes of what i had actually said, over and over. care to acknowledge your misstatement?

3. your "question" asks for either an obvious and irrelevant declaration "you're right, iron duke! what proven nazis/antisemites say is poisoned and and their denial doesn't mean something is controversial" or an absurd one: 'the antisemitic nature of an act can be considered controversed if only nazis or antisemites dispute that it is antisemitic.' that is not, and never has been, my argument. i argue that your labeling of these people as antisemites is pov. in fact, i have refuted the very premise that "only nazis or antisemites do it" by providing examples which you either made an exception for or rejected on the grounds of a) his belonging to the "in group" or b) his being an "antisemite".

4. true, you haven't directly stated that falk and tutu are antisemites, but, according to you, those statements are not antisemitic only if the person is a) a member of the "in group" and b) not an antisemite/nazi. tutu fails on count a), so according to your conditions he must be antisemitic. i did assume that you weren't going to make an exception for falk as a meeting both qualifications, as you declined to do for chomsky. if you are making that exception, please clarify, as i have done.

please provide the full sentence when you quote me, you left out the most important part of my statement here: "your agreement that there is controversy regarding those interpretations nonetheless supports that those incidents fall within the realm of controversed interpretations…(regardless of your personal opinion of those who hold those beliefs.)” if we are talking about david duke or ahmadinejad then antisemite isn't a pov description. with chomsky et al, it is. please address each point. untwirl(talk) 21:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, though I'm fully capable of replying to each of your points, I think we can save ourselves some time if, instead of arguing about who meant what when he quoted whom, you just point me in the direction of any reliable source who thinks the analogy is not antisemitic. If you absolutely insist that I rebut each of your points, I will, but it's time-consuming and I'm wondering how productive it would be. Plan? IronDuke 21:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

fine, here's one [18]. however, if you turn around and say he's an antisemite then i'll make you reply to each of my points above! ;) untwirl(talk) 22:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that (and sparing me the necessity of replying to all those points:]) . I don't, however, see how it addresses my point. It's an offensive cartoon, sure, and you can absolutely make a case for Antisemitism there, but we're talking about Nazis, yes? And comparisons to Jews? IronDuke 23:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

"The problem with the imagery of the fence is that some saw it as inverting a deep place of pain for Jews, the concentration camp. Here too the lampooning of a policy is fair game, but the unintentional trampling on a place of great pain is an unfortunate miscommunication or insensitivity, but not anti-Semitism." does that help? untwirl(talk) 23:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC) btw it isn't nazis and jews, but nazis and israel. lets not conflate the two. untwirl(talk) 00:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It does help, thanks. A few points to consider. 1) I'm willing to agree with Gopin here: the hurt was unintentional.

"Tony Auth at the Philadelphia Inquirer drew a comment on the Israeli security fence a drawing that depicted the fence following the outline of the Star of David, making seven enclosed areas in which Palestinians huddled. The imprisonment metaphor, Auth said, was intended to show that the security fence, by isolating and separating the Palestinians, was an obstacle to peace, but the picture also evoked memories of Nazi Germany's concentration camps. Israel and Nazi Germany were thereby equated, and the cartoon thus seemed anti-Semitic to many. Auth, like Locher, intended no such interpretation."

I take Auth at his word. So.. this wouldn't be an example of the analogy. I'm also more interested in your finding a blanket denunciation of that idea, eg, "People say comparing Jews to Naizs is antisemitic but it isn't." IronDuke 01:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

i'm back, briefly, but i'm not going to play with you over this moot point. you want to demand that all of your questions are answered, while deigning not to tire yourself responding to those asked of you, and set your own standards for which sources qualify as 'belonging'. since i already acknowledged that the placement of the graffiti led to its antisemitic nature, and not the content, and since most other editors agree to prohibit controversial material, i will refrain from engaging you further at this time. untwirl(talk) 00:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The Irvine incident was discussed above, with no clear conclusion being reached. The allegedly antisemitic aspect of the incident is not the content of the placards but the fact that they were placed at a synagogue. I would be inclined to think of this as ridiculously unnotable, but the police are investigating it as a hate crime, which arguably makes it notable. Nobody ever said that incidents that are only antisemitic according to certain reasonable definitions of the term shouldn't be in this article. They should be here, but extra caution should be taken to use reliable sources and to clarify that whether they were in fact antisemitic is a matter of controversy. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

1. If something is disputed, the normal approach is to include reliable sources that represent the differing views. Attempting to exclude a reliable source, such as the ADL, as a source in an article on antisemitism is not a normal approach, and is contrary to WP:reliable sources and WP:verify. When I have asked you and Cerejota for the justification of your unusual approach to sourcing, no rational explanations have been forthcoming.
2. As concerns you second erroneous point, it is obvious if an event targets Israel for criticism using antisemitic language and symbols, that is an antisemitic event. (If you need an example of how things could have been done otherwise, this is an example [19].) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Ironduke's revert was fine. The "Hamas Hamas, Jews to the gas" incident is obviously antisemitic. Ordinarily, this incident wouldn't pass the notability threshold that we've established for individual incidents, and should have just been mentioned at the beginning of the section as: "hate speech... reported in... the Netherlands". However, what made this incident notable was that a Dutch parliamentarian participated in the demonstration, and that caused a scandal. This fact and other related facts, e.g. the parliamentarian's response, should be mentioned. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 18:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

as i stated in the beginning of this section, if sources were provided to show that this is more notable than the way that it is at present represented by the source, then i would definitely favor its inclusion. however, as the article stands, it simply restates everything that the source listed says, "and some demonstrators at anti-Israel protests shouted slogans of 'Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the gas.'"" without sources stating otherwise, such as the one you mention, it doesn't meet the notability standard. that was my objection. please update the article with your new source and that will be fine. untwirl(talk) 19:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

that looks great. nice work. the only thing i would change is not having the chant quoted twice. maybe the second instance could just say, "(his) voice could be heard while protestors chanted the hate-speech in the background," or something like that? however, if anyone really wants it in there twice, i'm not strongly opposed. untwirl(talk) 20:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Untwirl wrote: "...it doesn't meet the notability standard."

Whose notability standard does it fail to meet? Are you claiming that the news source is not notable? If source is notable, and the source considered the news item notable enough to mention, how can you claim the contrary? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I refuse to reply to you until you attend the Jalapeno's School of Source Citing and Verifiability for a credit course on Notability and a lecture on the Bold, Revert, Discuss process.--Cerejota (talk) 04:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Cerejota wrote: I refuse to reply to you until....

I am not in the habit of demanding replies. You have a right to remain silent. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know, stoics are allowed to have a sense of humor. Its just that they aren't supposed express it. Just sayin'--Cerejota (talk) 04:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The Discourses of Epictetus are filled with humorous comments, and Seneca's letters show an active sense of humor also. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Lame jokes aside, unlike for the creation of an article, there is no need to meet WP:N for article inclusion.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

As usual when you are (mis)intepreting policy, you are incorrect. WP:RS by definition have to be notable, and the subjects/topics addressed have to be notable. However, it is a different kind of notability, because it can be notable for a single event, which is not allowed for single articles, and hence allows for inclusion of things that wouldn't survive CSD. For example, when discussing a movie, an otherwise non-notable crew member might be mentioned as having been in an accident covered in RS, but wouldn't warrant an article on his own.

The appropiate policy around this is WP:NNC clearly states: However, because of the nature of an encyclopedia, the concept of notability nonetheless affects article content. Treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Attend to anything that may construe undue weight, including depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. Keep in mind that an encyclopedia article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject, not a complete exposition of all possible details. Perhaps is you read beyond the heading you would realize this, but don't take my word for it, go ask at WT:N. (It sort of reminds me of your assertion that ARBCOM rules on content, even if WP:ARBCOM explicitly says they don't.) Wikipedia policy is not a game of Nomic in which you make it up along the way. You can sometimes ignore it, but you should never misquote it.

Also, nice dickish mis-use of drive-by, obviously intended to troll me into a block. Fail.--Cerejota (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Reading in between the lines of your diatribe, I'm discerning that we're in agreement, which makes me happy. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

So you admit being dickish?--Cerejota (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No Sweetie. I don't know why you assumed I would change my mind from the previous times you called my a "dick". I tried to be as concise and clear as possible but you still apparently failed to get my point. Notice "in between the lines of your diatribe."--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I love it when you talk to me like that, but no, we don't agree. AFAIK we have agreed only one thing, and I'll be damned its the one thing no one else agrees with! Our own private sphere of agreement! How cute is that? OT: like my work in re-categorizing the 2009 World Baseball Classic pages?--Cerejota (talk) 03:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Typical. Real baseball fans don't care about the WBC. ;-) --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course, any situation where the USA can lose 11-1 in 7 innings doesn't count in your book... :D--Cerejota (talk) 03:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

killing of children

I reverted Malcolm Schosha, because his edit summary was not valid: the information was not removed, it was simply expanded to actually include the sourced material. WP:MORALIZE: we let the facts speak for themselves.--Cerejota (talk) 20:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I actually made the update. I was a bit confused by the reason given for the revert in the history because I didn't actually remove anything just added a few more sources. Wodge (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit summery "not valid"? Well, that's a new line of crap.

If there was sourced content that is now gone, how do you figure that content was not removed? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

As I've said above, I did NOT remove your RS to the Times article. It is still there. However, I have added more information about Zahar's comment. Wodge (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

No Malcolm, not a load of crap: your edit summary says: rv deletion of sourced material. please discuss on talk page. As Wodge explained, he added material, not removed material. Your edit summary, therefore, was misleading (to be charitable). You could have said in the edit summary "rv added material" or "removing POV", and it wouldn't have been misleading - it might have been incorrect, but not misleading. You can express your opinions in edit summaries, but being misleading is a big no-no. Before characterizing comments by editors as a new line of crap you might want to check and ensure that it is indeed the case. --Cerejota (talk) 12:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I saw this happen. Wodge's changes are clearly closer to the sourced material, more informative and neutral. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

..and can I just add that when I reversed my delete vote to give editors the opportunity to write an article that wouldn't be a POV-fork I hoped that this kind of nonsense wouldn't happen. It really is quite disturbing to see decontexualising of sourced information about threats to kill children by one belligerent that involved the removal of information about the actual killing of children by the other belligerent. I mean, think about it. Surely we can do better than that here. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The claim that this article is a POV fork is bullshit. This article is about antisemitism, not about the Gaza armed conflict. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

That may very well be true had I in fact claimed that this article is a POV-fork. Perhaps I wasn't clear. By "I hoped that this kind of nonsense wouldn't happen" I was referring to the "decontexualising of sourced information about threats to kill children by one belligerent that involved the removal of information about the actual killing of children by the other belligerent". That is what happened and you did it. It's this kind of behavior that can result in an article becoming a POV-fork. I hope that is clearer. The source material had a context. The context was the IDF action in Gaza and the statements referred directly to the consequences of those actions for children in Gaza. I struggle to understand why you would even want to decontextualise antisemitic statements and how that is meant to help anyone trying to understand and learn about antisemitism ? This is an encyclopedia. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The only thing you have made clear is your own bias.

As for your use of problematic words like "decontexualising", that sort of silliness was the object of the Postmodernism Generator on this site [20]. It is an effort to sound intelligent without anything intelligent to say. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Stop the personal attacks. Please address the contribution not the contributor.--Cerejota (talk) 17:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I am quite certain that, if you really thought I had violated WP:NPA, you would have taken it to one of the noticeboards. Instead its just one more silly comment. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You ar equite incorrect, I only go to the noticeboards when there are egregious, repeated, and disruptive examples of bad behavior. Mostly, I try to appeal to the common sense and good faith of editors to stop going down disruptive paths. Sometimes it works. Now, I ask you once again to address the content issue, which you haven't, instead of telling people they are being silly. --Cerejota (talk) 20:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Michael Malcolm, this article is about Antisemitic incidents during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. At least, that's the title. So your comment "This article is about antisemitism, not about the Gaza armed conflict" So your comment doesn't appear to make sense. Wodge (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it makes absolutely no sense, in particular in the face of the AfD and deletion review. In fact, he can ask the article creator's if this is not a WP:SUMMARY sub-article of the Gaza war. If it isn't, it will be deleted in less than a second.--Cerejota (talk) 20:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it makes no sense at all...when you don't want it to make any sense. Especially, for editors who think antisemitism is justified, it makes no sense. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not see anyone here arguing that antisemitism is justified, so you are talking to yourself and your invisible windmills.--Cerejota (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Cerejota wrote: "you are talking to yourself and your invisible windmills"

Are you quoting Yogi Berra, or did you make up that stupid phrase yourself? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Don Quixote--Cerejota (talk) 01:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Tilting at windmills, more specifically. It is something most people truly interested in encyclopedias know. Of course, some people are here only to push POV, so its no wonder the reference is not understood.--Cerejota (talk) 01:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes everyone knows the stuff about Don Quixote tilting at windmills, including Yogi Berra. But, even if you think my editing goals are misguided, would it not be better to argue that instead of drifting off into fantasy by using a stupid literary comparison that does not apply? It would make as much sense (ie none at all) to say I am chasing the White Whale, or searching for the Lost Arc. In other words, you shifted from the actual content of the disagreement to a bullshit diversion. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually not, I simply drifted into your bullshit diversion and continued it on. I mean, as I recall, it was you who brought up the invisible and non-existent "justifiers of antisemitism". If you get on a soapbox in wikipedia, expect that it will be kicked from under you. Now, I exhort you, once again, to comment on the content, or at the very least to be coherent and logical when not doing so, not engage in a strawman building workshop. --Cerejota (talk) 12:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

My own discussion here has been about the article, including some defense of the article from bullshit attacks. At this point Cerejota seems to find it more interesting to discuss me in a way that is in violation of WP:NPA. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL!--Cerejota (talk) 17:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)"LOL"? Ok, how about this one:

A guy in Paris saw a pit bull attacking a toddler. He killed the pit bull and saved the child's life. Reporters swarmed the fellow.

"Tell us! What's your name? All Paris will love you! Tomorrow's headline will be: Parisian Hero Saves Girl from Vicious Dog!"

The guy says, "But I'm not from Paris.

"Reporters: "That's OK. Then the whole of France will love you and tomorrow's headline will read: 'French Hero Saves Girl from Vicious Dog!'"

The guy says, "I'm not from France, either."

Reporters: "That's OK also. All Europe will love you. Tomorrow's headlines will shout: 'European Hero Saves Girl from Vicious Dog!'"

The guy says, "I'm not from Europe, either.

"Reporters: "So, where ARE you from?

The guy says, "I'm from Israel".

"Reporters: "OK. Then tomorrow's headlines will proclaim to the world: 'Israeli Kills Girl's Dog!'"

Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

And this addresses the content how?--Cerejota (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Closer to the subject than your detour into "windmills". Anyhow, it is strange that first it was LOL, and then, then I told a joke, you stopped laughing. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to recap: a reference to Zahar's comment was already in the article. I expanded it to include what he actually said and added a few RSs. You reverted it several times claiming "deletion of sourced material" even though no sourced material had actually been deleted. Then attempted to justify your reasons for reverting as valid which has been completely shot down in flames. And you're still going. I believe that's why Cerejota is LOLing Wodge (talk) 20:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Wodge wrote: "no sourced material had actually been deleted"

Really? Did you have your fingers crossed when you wrote that? This compares the two edits [21]. As you can easily see there is sourced content that was deleted. That is why I reverted. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

None of the information in that section has been deleted. In fact, there is more information there. So could you please explain what "sourced content" means in your world? Thanks. Wodge (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Guys, calm down. Malcolm, if I may, I think you're being unnecessarily hostile. It's easy to fall into that frame of mind in this article, because there have been editors who just don't like the subject who have, basically, tried to sabotage the article. But trust me, Cerejota and Sean are reasonable and constructive editors (I don't know Wodge, but have no reason to doubt his intentions are good).

Regarding the actual dispute, I agree with Malcom's principle that the motivation for Zahar's statement falls outside of the subject of the article, but I agree with the others that if we're talking about statements people made, fairness requires us to include what they said about what they said. In that light, I think that Wodge's version is the more informative one, though I had some problems with it. I made some changes to it while keeping the essence. I think and hope you'll all find my changes reasonable, but if not I will explain and justify each one. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I think your edit looks ok. My point was that the quote was made by Zahar was already there so we should include subsequent information about it. Wodge (talk) 22:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Jalapenos, I'm fine with your amendments too. I do however disagree with the "principle that the motivation for Zahar's statement falls outside of the subject of the article". The article is about antisemitic incidents and this an encyclopedia. As Cerejota says, the very existence of this article relies on it being a sub-article of the main article. Like all forms of ethnic/political/religious etc stupidity and violence, antisemitism obviously doesn't just exist as an abstract entity in a vacuum. It's connected to the real world, real people and the immense diversity of bigotry that exists. If there's an opportunity for an encyclopedia to show the connection between statements/actions and motivation using reliable sources it seems odd and perhaps even irresponsible not to take the opportunity to include such pertinent information. Otherwise we risk producing articles that say X happened with no context or worse, X happened because Y is evil. Either way, it seems like a disservice to readers who presumably come here to get a better understanding of the world, warts and all. I have to say that I'm bemused by Malcolm interpreting this as bias or in some way an attempt to justify bigotry, violence and threats of violence. It's quite the opposite. It's providing more information so that readers can learn about the real world and make up their own minds. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Sean.hoyland wrote: "the very existence of this article relies on it being a sub-article of the main article"

It does not follow. You are confusing historical events with WP articles about the events. If the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict WP article did not exist, it would do nothing to change, much less invalidate, this article. The content of this article follows from the antisemitic events during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. The events described here follow from the historical events, and the content of this article is not dependent on any other WP article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

That's really up to you guys. I'm not confused, I just have an opinion that differs from yours but I don't really care about the main-sub dependency aspect because it won't happen. My primary concern is NPOV. Also you can just call me Sean even though my real name is Crystal and I'm a pole dancer from Las Vegas. It's just that the other girls think wiki is so uncool hence the pen name. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guess we have that much settled. Happy St. Patrick's day, Sean. (Its a big deal here in NYC.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I actually forgot about St. Patrick's day...oops. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Huh? So if the Gaza conflict hadn't happened, it would still make sense to you to have an article called "antisemitic incidents during the Gaza conflict"? Wodge (talk) 21:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

POV forks relate to WP articles, and if the WP article that describes the Gaza conflict did not exist, it would make no difference for this article. They are not about the same subject.

This article is about antisemitism, the other article is about the armed conflict. The antisemitic events described in this article had the Gaza conflict as their apparent cause, but it is not about the armed conflict. The article about the armed conflict has nothing at all to do with antisemitism. The only way this article could be called a POV fork is if the article on the conflict discussed the antisemitic events described here, and this article was created to give a different spin to that. From my reading of the second AfD, Cerejota agrees with me on this point, even if just about nothing else. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

ah, okay. Wodge (talk) 21:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually Malcolm, you have an incorrect reading of what I said, and others agreed: this is an article on a notable phenomenon that is ancillary to the conflict, but not entirely separate. In fact, in all the AfDs, on the DRV, and on this talk page I have been clear that this is a WP:SUMMARY article. So yes, if we are not vigilant, it can both become a COATRACK and a CFORK, both being reasons for the deletion. In fact, the material that made up of the core content of this article first existed in the main article, then was SUMMARY moved to the "international reactions" article. It wasn't until that article became to big, that me and others saw the value of keeping it. In the first Afd I voted merge initially.

Maybe you were not aware of this history, but now you are. In fact, to use your favorite word, it is bullshit that this article is not organically connected to the subject of the Gaza war. It is, by history and design, and hard fought community consensus, a WP:SUMMARY fork. The evidence is all there. Of course, the presence of evidence that contradicts your assertions has never been a roadblock for you.--Cerejota (talk) 22:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, Cerejota. It gives me more of a feeling of completeness to know that, instead of disagreeing on almost everything, we disagree on everything. You view on the subject is, of course, bullshit. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately, you stand alone in that view, a flat earther tilling at windmills. Psychosynthesis is quackery, so don't go there.--Cerejota (talk) 00:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

If you want to discuss Psychosynthesis, your comments should go there. Some reliably sourced negative opinions on the subject would be a welcome addition to that article....at least welcomed by me.

As for standing alone, I admire people who stand against the mistakes of majorities. For instance, David Dellinger. I do not understand how anyone could fail to admire such a man. Even someone who does not agree with the principles Dellinger stood for should be able to admire a person who made a principled stand. Not that I am comparing myself to him, but the arrogance of a self-satisfied and self-congratulatory majority is troubling. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

By your argument, we should admire Timothy McVeigh too. After all, he gave his life for his cause. That said, shall we not soapbox (this is like the 100th time I ask you not to)?--Cerejota (talk) 17:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a stupid thing to say. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

"That said, shall we not soapbox (this is like the 100th time I ask you not to)?" sounds like a pretty darned sensible thing to say, actually. Also, could you please explain what you mean by "sourced content"? Thanks. Wodge (talk) 18:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It is not WP:SOAP. However, at this point, this worthless back-and-forth discussion with Cerejota might justify changing the name of this thread to "Killing of Time". The problem for me has been that not replying amounts to conceding his point. Clearly, I his comparing me to Timothy McVeigh needed a reply: That was a really stupid thing for him to say. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

1) I didn't compare you to Timothy McVeigh. Re-read what I wrote: I said that by your logic, we should admire Timothy McVeigh. Lets at least agree on what it is we are disagreeing about 2) I have already said my piece about the "killing of children" to which you replied with accusations of "justifiers of antisemitism". If you are unwilling or unable to engage in anything but unfounded accusations or trying to change reality to suit your views (after all, it just takes a quick perusal of this thread to see you are incorrect, the record is there!) that is your problem. To address the content once more: I seconded Wodge's argument. --Cerejota (talk) 03:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

This is pretty much the longest fight I have observed on Wikipedia. FYI replying with 'that's stupid' means you got nothing important to rebut with. Don't be silly Malcolm, no one would come to the conclusion that cerejota compared you to McVeigh. Your attempt to poison the well with your claim that editors find antisemitism acceptable is just unacceptable. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 03:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

No. When I said it was a stupid thing to say, that accuratly summs up Cerejota's first calling me insane (comparing to Don Quixote), then his gloating over having a majority, and then implying again that I am insane to oppose a majority. Then he said that my standing against a majority put me togther with a mass murderer. Truthfully, I think your defense of Cerejota is silly. But, if you think that Cerejota is in the clear in this discussion, and that I have violated WP:NPA, than take it to AN/I, and we will see. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you please explain what you mean by "sourced content"? Thanks. Wodge (talk) 18:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Scope of article

Any interest yet in (renaming/)broadening the scope of the article to include anti-arab/muslim incidents ? This has always been my (and several others) preferred scope for the article in the sense that it's inherently less exposed to subsampling errors->povforkishness. I'm thinking of incidents like those described here for example and in previous reports by RS on the behavior of soldiers while in the Gaza Strip. Statements by one belligerent are already within scope for the article so it may be reasonable for anti-arab/muslim actions by the other belligerent to be within scope. If not, do we need to explicitly spell out why not in a header on this talk page explaining where anti-arab/muslim incidents should go ? Sean.hoyland - talk 04:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

There should be a separate article, if there is not one already, to deal with such anti-Islamic incidents. The issue (accusation) that this article is a POV fork was resolved (repudiated) in the second AfD. You may have noticed that this article has the antisemitism template. That is (logically) because the article is about antisemitism. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. It doesn't have the template by the way. That was removed by brewcrewer I think awhile ago. Suits me because I happen to think putting a Judenstern badge in this article is highly inappropriate. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the template should be there because the entire article deals with antisemitism. But the category that is there is accurate, so I will leave it as is for now. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed it, because it is a navigation template, not a categorization template, and this page is not mentioned in it: in addition, this article links to Antisemitism and other relevant articles. I have no problem with the category, as someone browsing the category will certainly have an interest in this article.--Cerejota (talk) 02:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

this article would be less subject to synthesis and coatracking if there were anti-arab incidents included and it was titled simply, "racist incidents..." untwirl(talk) 00:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. There are no notable sources listing a significant increase in anti-arab or islamophobic attacks, like there are with antisemitic attacks. This phenomenon of an marked increase of anti-semitic attacks is verifiable by very reliable third party non-partisan sources. Anti-Arab or islamophobic attacks have indeed happened, but nowhere near the number to have reliable sources give distinct coverage, it simply didn't happen enough or were as widespread as to deserve more than passing mention. NPOV is not separate from notability, and false balance is also a violation of NPOV. In any case, anti-arab incidents are too little to warrant a separate article, and should probably be mentioned in the appropiate sections of the "International Reactions" article, which is from the where this article came from.--Cerejota (talk) 02:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

i see that point. however, take the int'l reactions page as an example. there were many more anti-israel protests than pro-israel ones, but we still include the pro-israel ones even though they recieved considerably less attention. we don't have a page (or section) titled "anti-israel protests"; the section on the int'l reactions page is titled, "Civilian demonstrations and protests" with subsections describing both sides. untwirl(talk) 03:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I also buy the argument but not completely. This article is composed of micro-events that produce a macro-event. It deals with both levels but gives more weight to the micro-level simply because there's more information available at that level and that is what editors do, they make lists. The macro-event is the given justification for the existence/naming of the article but I see no essential difference between an antisemitic and an anti-arab/islamic micro-event if both of those events appear in an RS. If this article focused on the antisemitic macro-event level, it's cause-effects and so forth then an anti-arab/islamic micro-event wouldn't belong here. If it's focus is the micro-event level then it is about micro-events and you can argue that at the macro-level it's about racism albeit mostly antisemitic racism. To me it's like a list of cars based on colour vs an article about most cars being white. If you have already decided that you will have a list that will only include white cars because most cars are white (a macro-event) then inevitably a red car will have to go somewhere else. The question of whether it might be better to have a list of all cars or include the red one rather than just have white ones can be challenged on the basis of notability and false balance. It's self-referential. If the article was actually about the macro-event of most cars being white then fine, it's not about red cars. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Jumping from the abstract level to the concrete for a moment. It's important to point out that there has been a total of one (yes, one) anti/Arab/Muslim micro-event that we could even consider putting into this article, were we to decide to include that area, that has ever been produced or that I have ever come across in my research. This is the JDL incident in Paris. That incident itself is problematic, both because there is no indication that it was connected to the conflict, and because (last I checked) no RS has committed to saying that the incident definitely occurred, it being at present no more than an allegation and a police investigation into the allegation. While with this incident one could argue with me and make a case for its inclusion, no other such incidents have been brought up. The Israeli soldiers' graffiti incident, for example, would certainly not qualify for incclusion in this article, for at least two reasons. 1. It would not pass the notability threshold: we have consistently avoided including graffiti incidents, unless on a religious building or gravesite, even when reported in the international media. 2. It is an aspect of the conflict itself and not of international reaction or backlash to the conflict. 3. It is also arguable whether the graffiti was anti-Arabist at all, or simply anti-Palestinian. If an Israeli Arab in Nazareth wrote "death to the Jews" on a Jewish house, or indeed, when a Palestinian militant attempts to spare Israeli Arabs while killing Jews, then unless I had a reason to assume otherwise, I would assume that the target of the hostility is Israeli Jews, in the context of a political-ethnic conflict, not Jews in general, and I would not call the incident antisemitic. Similarly, if an Israeli soldier, while engaged in battle with Palestinian Arabs, writes "death to Arabs", I will assume that the target of the hostility is Palestinian Arabs, or, perhaps more precisely, those Arabs who belong to political entities militarily belligerent toward Israel, and not Arabs in Doha or Detroit. Reason #3 is complex though, and would probably have to be hashed out at length before reaching any kind of agreement. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the concrete point, but want to address the meta point by Sean: this includes only the white cars. Lets not forget from where this article came from: "International reactions". And it was for WP:SIZE reasons. I have argued the need for a separate "Protests" article (but that is for that page), but it would include all protests, because the RS do so. Untwirl argument of the prostests being together is not really applicable, while indeed the majority of the protests were pro-palestinian, the number of pro-Israel protests were not insignificant and they were noted in RS almost with as much frequency, if with less weight. You have the RS saying "there were 50,000 people in the pro-palestinian protest, and a couple hundred in the pro-Israeli one". You don't hear RS saying "Phenomenal difference between pro-palestinian protests and pro-israeli protests". You do get them saying "Phenomenal increase on antisemitic attacks during the Gaza war", and this is singly notable, and different from a general category of ethnic atatcks. Just because there have been a number of anti-arab/islamophobic attacks linked to this conflict, it doesn't mean we have to treat them as equally notable. As I said, that is a false balance.

To be semi-concrete (or semi-abstract!), there is a problem of treating ARBPIA articles as if they were all the same, to attempt "systemic" solutions, but they are not. There is a difference between Israel and the apartheid analogy and New antisemitism, which are abstract polemical ideas, and historical/news articles. Likewise, there is a difference between an article dealing with an event, and the sub-articles it generates because of the nature of the coverage in the RS. One of the worse of the sub-articles in the series, the nasty but much improved "Aid" "foreign involvement" article, had precisely the issue that it began as "Aid to Israel", this was over-specific, and obviously a POV fork. It was fixed by expanding it to include all aid to the belligenrents. This article seems, on the surfrace, to suffer of the same issue, but it is not. This is because the RS have indeed made wide mention of a phenomenal increase in antisemitic incidents as a direct result of the conflict. One of the reasons I have insisted on using news sources instead of partisan ones on this article is to prove this, and to keep away from coat racking, a real danger in an article like this, and we get people who still try to turn it into a coat rack. But that is much different than realizing that this is a notable topic on its own, that warrants its own article. Its was the RS say, and it is encyclopedic.

Lastly, I agree that in theater incidents are to be treated differently. While some might argue (with the ring of truth) that painting "death to jew/arabs" in Gaza or Israel is a racist attack, we have to give context to those that is very different to those outside of theater. And it has to do with why the word "theater" is used to describe battlegrounds: there is much drama involved. People do shit they would never do under other circumstances. While Kahanites and radical Islamists will always remain unrepentantly racists, I doubt they are behind these intimidatory expressions of war. It is unencyclopedic to give coverage to the lesser insult of paiting a door, over the greater insult of rockets and bombs, or to abscribe abstract motivations to concrete actions - unless the RS do so.--Cerejota (talk) 12:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Many interesting points here. Too many to deal with.

• Generally there seems to be more agreement than disagreement.
• I'm a big fan of spelling out agreed decision procedures for editors in prominent places to avoid confusion on issues like this e.g. inclusion/exclusion, antisemitism/antiisraeliism(not yet a word) like Jalapenos has attempted.......(and disputed/occupied but that's another talk page).
• Also fully support "using news sources instead of partisan ones on this article" to prove it's a notable topic "and to keep away from coat racking".
• I still worry sometimes that the subject frames we put around articles are artifacts and when you put them all together for certain areas e.g. I-P, stand back and look at the mosaic, things like due weight and balance at a higher level aren't really monitored enough. Although I'm just happy to bask in the glory of my recently awarded "Barnstar for anti-Semitic, Islamic fanaticist, terrorist-supporting merit". Sean.hoyland - talk 15:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

categories added

I added these:

Ethnic conflict Religion and violence Antisemitism in France Anti-Judaism Hate crimes Attacks on synagogues and Jewish communal organizations

I did an effort, whenever possible, not to add it to categories that had relevant sub-categories to them, that is why I added and then removed "discrimination"... categories should be as narrow as possible. I added "Antisemitism in France" as it was the only "by country" I could find, but feel free to add other if you find them for the countries mentioned here. In "Ethnic conflict" and "Hate crimes" I failed, but its more about exhaustion that correctness.--Cerejota (talk) 02:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• I have added this article to the Antisemitism template, and restored the template to this article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

And I removed it, as per the reasons given in the above thread.--Cerejota (talk) 12:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

anti-arab incidents and standard for inclusion

i haven't researched it, but if there were only one "anti-arab" incident then i agree it probably isnt notable enough. however, the statement, "we have consistently avoided including graffiti incidents, unless on a religious building or gravesite, even when reported in the international media," is not reflected in the article:

"A giant swastika was daubed opposite Istanbul's Israeli Consulate and Jewish symbols were trampled and burned."

"A sign reading "Jews cannot enter, dogs can" was put at the door of a civic group's office in Eskisehir and removed after a media outcry."

"20 Jewish buildings other than synagogues were also daubed."

"Anti-Semitic graffiti with slogans including 'Kill Jews', 'Jews are scumbags' and 'Jihad 4 Israel' were also sprayed in Jewish areas across London and Manchester."

"At a Jewish preschool in Camarillo, California, swastikas and anti-Semitic messages written in black marker on its sidewalk and walls."

"In La Paz, vandals removed a Star of David from a monument from the Plaza Israel and started spray-painting "plaza Palestina" on Jewish murals."

if we have a notability standard that excludes "graffiti incidents, unless on a religious building or gravesite" and "is also arguable whether the graffiti was anti-Arabist(or semitic) at all, or simply anti-Palestinian(or israeli)" (jalapenos' point #3 - my italics) - then none of those incidents meet that bar. untwirl(talk) 02:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The issue of notability was already settled on the last AfD. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

And is also being discussed in this very talk page. Another point is that regardless if Arabs are semitic, the word "antisemitic" means anti-Jew in English, Spanish, Italian, German, and to a wide extent in French. And that is the languages I know that to be the case. In France "Judeophobic" has began to gain usage, and similar formulations with "Jew" as root are common in Dutch, Danish, and both versions of Norwegian - but variations on "antisemitic" are also used. POV redefinitions of the word do not belong in an encyclopedia, although perhaps antisemitism could use a section on this discussion if notable people raise it. AFAIK this is just a blog POV thing, the normative usage of "antisemitism" refers to Jews, and Jews only, both as a religion and as ethinic groups (ie Ashkanazi, Sefardi etc).

sorry if i was unclear - you must have misunderstood my comment. i wasnt trying to say that anti-arab=anti-semitic. antisemitic obviously means anti-jew in current usage, regardless of the origin of the word semite. my reason for adding the italics was to show that if it is arguable whether the graffiti was anti-semitic, or simply anti-israeli then it shouldn't be included on this page. i was using jalalpenos' points in the section above to illustrate how his comments apply to items already in this article that don't meet that standard. if you like, you can disregard that statement for this point anyway because all of these examples fall under the first point: "we have consistently avoided including graffiti incidents, unless on a religious building or gravesite." according to that standard, the examples i have listed do not belong in the article. untwirl(talk) 15:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

venezuela removal

one line in the section itself says, "Following arrests and interviews with the suspects, Wilmer Flores Trosel, director of the scientific and investigative police, CICPC, said that robbery not antisemitism had been the motive behind the break in. [84]"

also haaretz: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1064709.html "Report: Caracas synagogue attack was simple robbery, not anti-Semitism By Haaretz Service "

if reliable sources (including police) say this is not antisemitism, and not related to gaza, but robbery instead, how can we state that it is?

please be consistent in your editing and the standards for this article. untwirl(talk) 16:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

First, you removed much material other than the synagogue break-in, and you have not yet attempted to justify that removal. As for the break-in itself, an opposition newspaper in Venezuela, quoted by Haaretz, said the attack was not antisemitic. All other reliable sources said it was. Assuming the Venezuelan newspaper is a reliable source, we have a situation where reliable sources disagree whether an attack was antisemitic. By all means add the minority report, that of the Venezuelan newspaper, but do not remove the majority report. As I noted above, without being contested, if there is legitimate disagreement in the sources about whether an incident is antisemitic, the incident should be included, and the differing views described. The police chief is, of course, not a reliable source. At the best of times, the police are a primary source, to be used with caution. Venezuela is undergoing, shall we say, some turmoil regarding free speech and independence of various arms of the government from Chavez, and we know that the position of President Chavez is that there is little to no antisemitism in Venezuela. Hence, this statement by a police chief is similar to a statement by a White House lackey in the U.S. on, say, the Iraq War, i.e. not reliable but possibly a notable POV. Incidentally, if it turns out that the attack was not antisemitic and the desecration of religious objects and the graffiti such as "Jews out" were merely to make the police think that the attack was antisemitic, as the Venezuelan newspaper claims and which I find hard to believe (cf. free speech issues above), the attack should probably still be included in this article. At the very least, Jewish religious objects were desecrated and a synagogue was defaced with antisemitic messages, but for practical rather than political reasons. It would also be quite notable, and would do much to clarify and illustrate the macro-situation in Venezuela regarding antisemitism, if burglars tried to cover their tracks by pretending to be an antisemitic gang. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

i am not dedicated to its removal, i just want to see a consistent standard. sorry if i missed the place where you said, "if there is legitimate disagreement in the sources about whether an incident is antisemitic, the incident should be included, "; the comments i was referring to in the above section are "1. It would not pass the notability threshold: we have consistently avoided including graffiti incidents, unless on a religious building or gravesite, even when reported in the international media. . . 3. It is also arguable whether the graffiti was anti-Arabist at all, or simply anti-Palestinian." obviously in reverse that would mean not to include items which are arguably not antisemitic, but anti-israeli. also, please note each of the points above where the graffiti is not "on a religious building or gravesite". untwirl(talk) 17:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Your removal of the Venezuela incidents has nothing to do with the incidents you proposed removing in your comments in the above section, and I was not referring to those comments. I may respond to them in the appropriate section. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

your inconsistency is precisely what my response is referring to. i think it is a good compromise to create a section on reliably sources disputed incidents. your selective responses when your consistency is in question, as well as your refusal to respond to me on an unrelated matter, make it hard to agf.

re the rest of the venezuela paragraph - it was filler. a quote from a jewish community leader that "where we live, antisemitism is sanctioned," made in response to israel kicking out the venezuelan envoy? have you read the sources? the other,longer quote from the venezuelan minister isn't even included. "Jewish schools were closed for several days due to concern that they would attract anti-Israel demonstrations.[85]" jewish schools closing in fear of an incident that didnt happen is an incident? and finally, anything against chavez belongs in the government section, as he is the president. untwirl(talk) 18:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we need a new section for Hoaxes? There's also a hoax story doing the rounds about "Prominent British Jews were advised to review their security arrangements after several were identified on Islamist websites as 'financial supporters of Israel'.". (See below) Wodge (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Untwirl: if Jalapaneos has been anything is consistent, so your attack is uncalled for. I suggets you strike it out.

On the specific content issue, there has to be a chronology: from pretty much since the beginning, the Government of Venezuela sustained that this had been a simple robbery, and this was present in this article.

What has happened is that now this has become accepted by those who had questioned this position before. I suggest we re-write a little, to fit that the view that this was but there is no need to setup a "hoaxes" section, as this was not a hoax (there where indeed antisemitic daubings and vandalism), but a developing situation. But previous declarations should remain, as an example of over-reaction, and the sensitive nature of the situation. Furthermore, I think a sentence in the lead is in order that points out the confussion. Definitely, the emerging consensus in the reliable sources is that this was not an antisemitic attack, and on this Jalapenos needs to read up: the only people calling this an anti-semitic incident, were precisely those who are now retracting. From the beggining the government even named suspects and made arrests.

As to how it relates to gaza, you have an example of criminals taking advantage of a sensistive political situation to thier advantage. This reminds me of the criminals in Ireland who posed as paramilitaries of either side when performing their crimes, in order to confuse everyone. This is an inherent danger of political discourses that accept black and white definitions: when the greys invade, everyone ends up looking like an ass. --Cerejota (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

'inconsistent' is an attack? it seems that both you and he consider that it is so i apologize for your having taken offense, even though i would not consider it one. i provided a direct quote of his standard and then a list of items that didn't appear to fit. if that can be refuted i am happy to understand. also, as far as venezuela, reliable sources say this wasnt antisemitic. it was widely reported as such and then declared not antisemitic. so, to include this you have to say "Though it was first reported as an antisemitic incident, it was later determined to be a hoax ..." or something to that extent and as such would not merit much detail. i see that jalapenos has since removed some of the most glaring coats (his word) so it seems that at least the community leader quote was deemed by another editor not to merit inclusion in an article about antisemitic incidents. untwirl(talk) 03:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

here - compromise - i reworked it. the community leader's accusation and the govt response. left in the (long) part about the robbery. let me know if you have problems with it in the new section. untwirl(talk) 15:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

due to hypocritical comments by both of you here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2009_IDF_T-Shirt_controversy with regard to what consists of an insult or attack and how thick one's skin should be, i hereby rescind my apology and repeat my insistence that editors remain consistent in their arguments. untwirl(talk) 06:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Hoaxes

The following sentence (which is repeated in both Threats and intimidation and the United Kingdom): "British Jews were advised to review their security arrangements after several were identified on Islamist websites as “financial supporters of Israel” seems to be based on a hoax story original by Glen Jenvey.

I wrote about this in the United Kingdom section. However, I'm wondering if it should be moved out of both of those sections and put in a new section. Wodge (talk) 16:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

i think that two notable items are probably enough to warrant a new section. untwirl(talk) 18:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Are any RS calling these hoaxes?--Cerejota (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

There are several RSs calling the "Islamist websites" story a hoax. Sun front-page story on 'terror target' Sir Alan Sugar under investigation Wodge (talk) 19:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Then add the coverage, no need for a separate "hoax" section. I do suggest a line in the lede that points out that some incidents turned out to be hoaxes.--Cerejota (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion as to what the lede should be? Wodge (talk) 14:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

reliable source

this source [external link edited for Wikipedia spam filter] www examiner com /x-2086-NY-Foreign-Policy-Examiner~y2009m1d26-How-Venezuela-and-the-Middle-East-are-becoming-inseparable that is used for calling chavez the "invisible hand" doesn't appear to be reliable. The authors 'bio': "Born in Egypt and now a New Yorker, Aimee has lived the Middle East Conflict and brings an expert eye to the region's news, Check her bi-lingual blog at Women's Lens." i'm removing it. i also cleaned up the bit about the robbery, still seems a little much, but i dont have time right now. moved all govt reactions to the govt reactions section and put in the minister's response. thats it, i think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Untwirl (talk • contribs) 15:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC) ec with bot_ arrggh! untwirl(talk) 15:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Norway addition

This was added on March 31st, 2009. Per the article on the leader of that demonstration, there seems to be denial that folks were shouting death to the Jews. Should that be included with citations ect? I am not really involved here, but this seems to be very current eventish, not that that should preclude it or whatever, just curious. Anyways, I also copy edited the subject of the demonstration if you want to check that out as well. Thanks, --Tom (talk) 17:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

That link doesn't work. When you go to jpost, it says "Article content not available". Wodge (talk) 18:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

See Kristin Halvorsen. The link was working as hour ago, but not now? Other citations say that the J Post "removed" the article?? Anyways, I would remove this incident for now until we see what pans out. --Tom (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Did some more searching and found this (in Norwegian) and here's the google translation suggesting it's a hoax, a swedish blog with some more background. And here's the press release in english. There was a similar situation in the UK with scare stories in the press turning out to be hoaxes. Wodge (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Wodge, I have reverted you here and in the Halvorsen article since the J Post never said that Halvorsen had shouted those slurs. Not sure where you are picking that accusation up from, but it seems inaccurate. Since this happened so recently, let the facts sort themselves out, and if this event warrants inclusion, it can be added back in due time. Thank you, Tom (talk) 20:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the screen grab here that the paper has, it implies that she was shouting death to the Jews.

Here's the sentence: Numerous government officials decried Israel's actions in Gaza - including Minister of Finance Kristin Halvorsen, who led a march shouting, "Death to the Jews!" Numerous government officials decried Israel's actions in Gaza - including Minister of Finance Kristin Halvorsen, who led a march shouting, "Death to the Jews!" Wodge (talk) 20:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that sentence can be read in two different way, one is that she was the one doing the shouting or the march she was leading was doing the shouting. It is best to go with the version that is corroborated by several sources which I believe is the latter. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it was the fact that it can be read two ways that has caused the protests. If it had just been anonymous chanting, don't you think that the article would be still there? The blog I linked too above seems to imply that, admittedly though that isn't an RS. Wodge (talk) 20:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The Google Translation also seems to confirm this Wodge (talk) 20:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The Jerusalem Post has retracted its claim. Until and unless something new comes up, the issue is dead. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems you are right Wodge, based on what they said in their retraction, they did in fact accuse Halvorsen of making the statements --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 22:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Just read the JPost article. Not much an apology, is it? Wodge (talk) 22:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's just say that the retraction is hard to find and readers would not know there was a retraction unless they read much of the article. Tom, JP did accuse her of saying the statements "Contrary to what was suggested in a Jerusalem Post report this week, Halvorsen was not heard to utter anti-Semitic statements during the demonstration, and was not present at the outbreak of violence."--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 00:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this incident should go in the article somewhere. Wodge (talk) 01:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Why? If it was an antisemtic incident, yes. If not, no. Tom (talk) 02:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

So an alleged increase in antisemitism is notable and has a whole article devoted to it. Yet newspapers printing fallacious stories to whip up hysteria about antisemitism isn't? Wodge (talk) 23:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I have added anything to this article, not that that should matter. Also, feel free to start an article about newspapers that print fallacious stories, probably already is one :). Maybe take this to the J post article if it hasn't been done already, but this seems pretty current eventish and not sure how notable it is. Anyways, Tom (talk) 03:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Removal of antisemitic incident in the US

User:Manas17, a new editor, removed content (and mistakenly a reference that sources something else) based on his/her opinion "posters criticizing the Israeli gov't is not antisemitic". I reverted the content removal [22] because while undoubtedly Israel-criticism is not automatically anti-semitic, it does depend on the totality of the circumstances. Moreover, it really depends on how the incident is described in reliable sources. My re-addition of the content that was in the article for a long time was promptly reverted by User:Untwirl, with the same exact content and mistaken source removal.

It would be prudent that we discuss this issue before we rashly remove sourced content that is in the article for a long period of time. The issue under contention is an incident in which anti-Israel posters were placed at a synagogue, one of them proclaiming "Gaza -- The New Shoah." The reliable source describing the incident headlined the story as "Gaza Conflict Means Local Anti-Semitism". If a reliable source describes an incident as "anti-semitic" our original research, no matter how logically sound, cannot remove the description of the incident if we think that the incident is not anti-semitic. But now that this issue is being discussed I'll mount my soapbox and say that comparing the intentional murder of millions of civilians to the death of a few hundred civilians, whose death was attempted to be avoided, is anti-semitic in deed, if not in intent. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

read the source - the preschool incident is described as anti-semitic, the posters arent. The actual headline is, "Gaza conflict means local anti-Semitism, JFS gets new logo" and there are 5 different stories, "L.A. Day School Executive Part of Richardson Probe","Swastikas Found at Camarillo Preschool", "Hamas Posters Found at Irvine Synagogues", "Jewish Family Service Changes Logo", and "Israeli Film Takes Top Honors". The only one of these stories that the source labels "antisemitic" is the preschool one. to use your statement, ""If a reliable source [does not] describe an incident as "anti-semitic" our original research, no matter how logically sound, cannot remove [add] the description of the incident if we think that the incident is not anti-semitic." my edit summary made that clear. untwirl(talk) 03:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The "local anti-semitism" obviously refers to all the applicable incidents mentioned below. The painting of the swastika's is not anti-semitic either, it's only meant to support a German political party. Right.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

so, which part of the headline refers to the israeli film? or the day school/richardson affair? if it isn't explicitly called anti-semitic, it shouldn't be included. the swastika incident was called antisemitic in that source. the postering wasn't. find another source if you want it in so badly, this one doesn't support it. untwirl(talk) 04:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

If you so badly want to delete it from the article you'll have to establish somewhat conclusively that the headline does not refer to the incidents below. There's no requirement that the article have to repeat the exact words of the headline in order to for it to be considered part of the headline. The article mentions "hate crime" and the headline obviously refers to the blatant anti-semitism mentioned in the article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

wrong. your synthesis of a headline which explicitly refers to one story of five to make it refer to two, is OR. the headline isn't enough when there are 5 different stories, and one of them uses the word "antisemitic". we can get an rfc going if you want, and i will include more problems (like this article basically being a coatrack of news stories, many of which don't conform to the time period in the article title). untwirl(talk) 04:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It refers to all the incidents, and you know it. Get whatever you want going, but please make sure you get a consensus before destabilizing the article and removing longstanding content on dubious grounds. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

New source

The Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism and Racism at Tel-Aviv University has published a report of our topic here. I'm linking to it from the article, but I don't have time right now to mine it for information. If someone else does, that would be great. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 15:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

How much do you pay per hour?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)