Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-semitic anti-Zionism

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. This is getting very academic in parts, so forgive me if I've skipped over some of the longer walls of text. With one exception (and the nominator, which I'm not really inclined to count, because this is articles for deletion, not articles for keeping, but it doesn't matter...), no editor argues that this is an independently notable concept, but rather an aspect of anti-zionism. What's more, consensus is also that it's not even worth merging because the concept as outlined in the article (as a specifically left-wing issue, apparently) is original research by synthesis. Consensus therefore is that the overlap of these two anti-isms (of any political persuasion) should remain covered in anti-zionism, anti-semitism and the many other already existing anti-ism articles.  Sandstein  20:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-semitic anti-Zionism

[edit]
Anti-semitic anti-Zionism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Transferring proposed merge to AFD in quest of broader participation and in the belief that "merge" is being used as a sort of stealth deletion by an editor who first tagged the page for notability, then, when challenged by at least 2 editors to take it to AFD if he truly believed topic was not notable, started a merge discussion. With apologies to editors who tire of endless Middle East-related AFDs, and in the belief that the way to end BATTLEGROUND tactics is to make objective, policy-based decisions. E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But, which of those 2 articles does this article "seem the same" as?E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note Article currently linked from single sentences on both pages mentioned, which, frankly seems more efficient and more usual. Note that we have hundreds of articles on Political terms. We have about a dozen articles on separately defined types of antisemitism (including one I had not seen until just now, secondary antisemitism, I just linked it from a page I started yesterday on Werner Bergmann). Pages like secondary antisemitism, Orthodox Jewish Anti-Zionism, and Anti-semitic anti-Zionism are useful, which is probably why we have dozens of pages in Category:Antisemitism; hundreds in Category:Democracy, and 8 subcategories in Category:Anti-Zionism. I refer editors to WP:GNG, the principle that pages exist when there are persuasive, reliable sources to support a topic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, good point there. I am not really sure, and it may be a moot point since the article may be deleted altogether. GABHello! 23:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy.
This "article" is nothing but a list of instances in which authors have used the phrase "antisemitic anti-Zionism" or some close variation. There are no secondary sources cited, because there are no secondary sources about the phrase. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please note both the notability and merge discussions on the talk page were started by the author of the article himself who has now nominated the article for deletion. I object to the "stealth deletion" accusation, I merely added a merge tags on the relevant articles after the discussion was started on the talk page to encourage broader participation from other editors. Nevertheless, it is irrelevant where the discussion takes place as the same arguments will be used until consensus is established, regardless of whether it is a merge or AfD discussion, nothing at all stealthy about that. Tanbircdq (talk) 11:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Er, no. I opened sections on notability and merge after templates were put on page as a simple act of keeping things organized.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:42, 11 March 2016 (UTC):[reply]
Er, I only added the notability tag as the article only had two sources at the time. After you started the talk page discussion, the merge tags became relevant to encourage broader consensus. Please try to WP:AGF rather than making such inappropriate accusations, take care. Tanbircdq (talk) 20:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but you are laboring under a huge misapprehension. The article you started suggested by WP:OR that Alan Johnson invented the concept, and Simon Schama recognized his originality. What Alan Johnson wrote merely recycled what numerous scholars have argued concerning links between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitic discourse since the 1970s. Anyone with the slightest familiarity with the topic, bar Simon Schama, would have recognized the trite discursive overlap between what Johnson wrote and what Robert Wistrich used to write. Your WP:OR hangs on this failure to familiarize yourself with the topic. When editors noted Johnson's remarks were old hat, you started backtracking to document earlier examples of the phrase, but only going back a few years, to keep the idea that this was some 21st century development. It ain't. You've created an unworkable mess. The only point of the exercise is to hang this on "leftists". Early scholars, such as Pierre Birnbaum, said anti-Semitic anti-Zionism was a strong characteristic of the right-wing as well. Johnson hates "leftists", and trimmed out the right-wing connection. What a conceptual revolution. Nishidani (talk) 13:42, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other types of antiSemitic anti-Zionism can, and arguably should, have separate articles. This article outlines a tightly defined type of specifically left/progressive anti-Zionism that has a unique and well-defined ideology. We have separate articles on separate political ideas/movements. Feel free to write an article on right wing antisemitic anti-Zionism.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reality check I started an article, have been expanding and improving it, learning about the topic from sources that use this term and improving the article as it grows. This AFD is about whether a specifically left-wing, modern (not Victorian or medieval) form of Antisemitic anti-Zionism exists and is notable. Sourcing in article argues that it does.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:51, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Before starting articles, familiarize yourself with the topic. You answered none of the objections above, but simply described what you were doing. There is a huge literature on the anti-Semitic character of Soviet critiques of Zionism since the 1950s. Journalists like Johnson get things consistently wrong, and numerous other journalists pick up the 'new' talking point without any background research. This is an encyclopedia, not a sponge for overnight newspaper trivia and the topic is conceptual,a and is best handled by secondary sources that know how to contextualize the chat in the longer discursive history.
Please WP:AGF the fact is that this concept was news not only to me, but to Simon Schama and Roger Cohen. I suppose obsessive leftist, anti-Semites already knew about it. I looked at New Antisemitism, which WP definies as "emanating simultaneously from the far-left, radical Islam, and the far-right" Very different. Anti-Zionism is a mess of an article, already overly long, as is Antisemitism. All three articles, however, feature many brief descriptions of sub-topics that have separate pages. As several major scholars have tightly defined this phenomenon. A tightly defined, separate article with links seemed like the best course. It still does.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:44, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – As per Malik Shabazz, the article does not contain reliable secondary sources that actually "discuss" rather than just "use" the term or concept. In absence of such sources, it is insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this requires "analysis" and "synthesis" of primary source to advance its position, which is prohibited by WP:OR.
This article is just a WP:POVFORK of Anti-Zionism and Antisemitism which attempts to make connection between the two topics with a collection of examples where writers have used the phrase or a variant of "antisemitic anti-Zionism". The relationship between the topics can be discussed in the individual articles themselves rather than inventing an unencyclopedic potential link between the two. Tanbircdq (talk) 20:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect to the editors above, Antisemitic anti-Zionism is a notable modern phenomenon and a separate topic from Anti-Zionism and from Anti-Semitism.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Userify. It's fair to say the article needs a lot of work, just being a random collection of random thoughts from random scholars at the moment, but I don't think it's quite fair to say it is, or at least was intended as, a POV fork. From what I can gather, (I haven't read much on the subject yet) this "anti-semitic anti-Zionism" seems distinct that in seems to be a form of classical antisemitism specifically targeted against Zionism and the State of Israel, and not against Jews per se; a kind of politically correct new antisemitism, perhaps. It's an interesting distinction and probably worth seeing if this could become a viable article as there seems to be a lot of scholarship around, and the term has reached a certain notability recently, thanks to Johnson and Schama.
Certain key aspects are missing - such as the work of Robert Wistrich, who was the real coiner of the term back in the 1980s, and who dedicated much of his work to this. E.M.Gregory probably lacks and academic background and has difficulty interpreting all of the scholarship, however, and probably found Johnson's succinct if simplistic interpretation easier to understand and write up about. I think WP:POORLY applies here, and in all honesty, I think there's a bit of WP:DLS on the part of some of the commenters, too. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wistrich used the term and defined its elements in 1984. His definition was even then not new. The danger of these forks is that they just spin out a large array of newspaper screaming, and don't follow the critical literature. As said above, all this is amply covered in various articles, and this was created out of pure misapprehension, as you justly note, that Johnson's casual remark was original. It wasn't, and nothing added to it is original. Encyclopedias should focus on a clear representation of topics by theme, not meme replication under aliases.Nishidani (talk) 21:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As User:AnotherNewAccount says, the world at large sees Anti-Semitic anti-Zionism as an independently notable phenomenon. Notable independent of the topics into which a merge has been proposed. The idea that AntiZionism is now causing anti-Semitism in Britain, the United States and elsewhere is a new idea, even if editors on this page dislike that fact (WP:DLS), it is well-documented. And, pace User:Nishdani, the sources are not "newspaper screaming", Simon Schama and the others i cite are serious scholars, identifying an writing about a significant, distinct form of anti-Semitism. The article draws on serious scholarship. Sourcing and Notability are the standard for WP:GNG. I will try to improve the article, other editors were helping to do so before the AFD began, and I hope that those with scholarly knowledge of the topic will help. But the the topic is notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:58, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Should anti-Jewish hatred be denied a page that would be given to other distinctive, formally-defined forms of race-hatred? "There's a new wave of anti-Semitism in France, which is often packaged as anti-Zionism, but employs all the classical tropes." [14] published today. This is real: France's Toxic Hate, [15]. Can Nishdani or anyone explain why this large, well-documented phenomenon does not merit a separate page, with links from brief subsections on Anti-Zionism and New antisemitism.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Simon Schama is a great scholar, and like all great men, makes mistakes. His opinion is not notable because his article shows that he did not grasp that Johnson was just channeling clichés with a long history, and using a phrase 3 decades old. Now, please refrain from turning the page into a forum for your assertions.Nishidani (talk) 13:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nish, the idea that you know more about antisemitism than Simon Schama does is... breathtaking, can you spell Chutzpa? WP:BLUDGEON? Please put yours down.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He made a known error. To err is human, scholars are human. Every book review of a great scholar will note some of the inevitable slips and oversights. My own copies of Schama's works are thus annotated. To make the inference from this that because I noted one error, therefore I am implying I know more than Schama about, say, anti-Semitism, is puerile (It's not his field, and it isn't mine, in any case). it ain't even logic. It's typical, in its failure to understand the simplest syllogisms, of newspaper hacks writing for a specific constituency to confirm their ingrained beliefs. Nishidani (talk) 21:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here: [16] Michael Walzer and a lineup of credentialed leftist intellectuals discuss the problem of left-wing Antisemitism anti-Zionism.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:NOTFORUM. Nishidani (talk) 21:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whoop-do-doo! You've veered off into left field, E.M.Gregory. This is a deletion discussion, about a specific Wikipedia article, about a specific phrase. Not a forum about leftism and antisemitism. So please pick up your soapbox and go away. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Antisemitic anti-Zionism is a term of art that describes a concept. The articles I cited above are about the concept, others, like this recent one [17] in The Telegraph use the term: "Antisemitic anti-Zionism distorts the meaning of Israel and Zionism until both become receptacles for the tropes of classical antisemitism." in discussing the impact of Antisemitic anti-Zionism within Britain's Labor Party.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Labor Party suspends member over anti-Semitic tweets [19]
Equally Greg, you may wish to consider taking your own advice regarding WP:BATTLEGROUND which you quoted when you nominated this article for deletion. Also WP:DROPTHESTICK, your responses do not appear to serve any purpose and you are not adding anything new; I think everyone is aware of your opinion and your reasons. I doubt these one-on-one WP:FORUM exchanges are getting any further to changing the outcome of this discussion to anything other than an overwhelming, resounding delete consensus, however, you may have the WP:LASTWORD. Tanbircdq (talk) 15:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As has been stated above, the problem with the consensus is WP:DLS. I urge an administrator to roll this one over and hope that some courageous editors who are are not emotionally involved with the Middle East weigh in.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"hope that some courageous editors who are are not emotionally involved with the Middle East weigh in." That rules you out then @E.M.Gregory: AusLondonder (talk) 22:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with New antisemitism. I want to paraphrase E.M.Gregory’s argument in my own words first to make sure I understand it:
Johnson, Bergmann, Marcus, Schama and Hirsh have all used the phrase "anti-Semitic anti-Zionism" to refer exclusively to the way the left wing expresses anti-Jewish sentiments in the form of opposition to the existence of Israel. Their usage of the phrase "Anti-Semitic anti-Zionism" is unique from other perspectives on new antisemitism, because it’s specifically commentary on the left-wing version of antisemitism as opposed to commentary on both extreme right and extreme left wing expressions of anti-Jewish sentiment in the form of anti-Israel rhetoric. And it deserves its own article, because (1) the exact phrase “anti-Semitic anti-Zionism” has been used numerous times by various experts to express a shared concept of left-wing antisemitism in the guise of anti-Zionism and because (2) discussion of the topic would take up too much space in the New antisemitism article.
Is that right? Hopefully it is, because if not, the rest of this might be totally off base. Hypothetically, I could agree with that argument or a re-worded one, but I don’t think the current premise is supported by the sources. The only 2 that seem to support it were the 2 by Johnson (that were essentially the same article published by 2 different news sites). This is what the sources say vs what the article says they say. (Quotes from the article are in green, quotes from the sources are in italics and the bold is my emphasis.)
Johnson: Left-wing antisemitism never went away. It became the "anti-imperialism of idiots" in the last third of the 20th century, when vicious, well-funded and long-running anti-Zionist campaigns were conducted by the Stalinist states, in alliance with the authoritarian Arab states and parts of the western New Left. Those campaigns laid the ground for the form taken by left-wing antisemitism today - antisemitic anti-Zionism. (See here and here.)
Bergmann -- “The Handbook posits that anti-Semitic anti-Zionism is an outcome of the commitment of the "extreme left" to anti-racism, anti-imperialism and anti-capitalism; as an outcome of the tendency of the extreme left, "Arab Muslims," and "some third-world countries" to see Israel as a "stooge of American imperialism;" and as a means of expiating European guilt for its fascist and/or imperialist past.”
Differentiating between anti-Semitic and non-anti-Semitic criticism of Israel is proving controversial. Accusations directed against Israel are to be regarded as motivated by anti-Semitism when they exploit traditional anti-Semitic figures of thought and… demonize Israel as the “enemy of the world,” and question Israel’s right to exist or defend itself. This anti-Semitic anti-Zionism has various motives: anti-imperialist, anticapitalist, and antiracist motives amongst the extreme left and some third-world countries that see Israel as a “stooge of American imperialism”; a means of offsetting guilt for the extreme right, using Israel as a projection screen for their anti-Semitic resentments. (here)
Marcus -- “In 2008 civil rights scholar Kenneth L. Marcus, noting that "anti-Semitic anti-Zionism" is "quite distinct from legitimate criticism of Israeli politics," set out "the distinguishing features" of the ideology of anti-Semitic anti-Zionism that were, he thought, "rapidly becoming conventional" among contemporary, left-wing anti-Zionists.”
Marcus did not refer to left-wing politics at all in the source cited. His focus was the antisemitism expressed on college campuses by students and professors without mentioning any specific political affiliations. He said: The distinguishing features of anti-Semitic anti-Zionism are rapidly becoming conventional: employment of "classic anti-Semitic stereotypes," use of double standards, "drawing comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany," and "holding Jews collectively responsible for Israeli actions" regardless of actual complicity. For example, American college students and faculty have recently used the medieval phrase "blood libel" to describe Israeli military practices, ascribed traditional Jewish cultural stereotypes to contemporary Israeli society, and attributed demonic characteristics to Israeli leaders and Zionists as those characteristics have historically been related to Jews.
Schama -- “[Schama] cites Johnson's use of anti-semitic anti-Zionism to describe a tendency to anti-Semitic discourse on the part of the contemporary left in Western countries that, Schama says, "has mutated into a rejection of Israel's right to exist."”
Schama’s references to the left were all basically in the context of emphasizing that this form of antisemitism also exists on the left end of the spectrum, not exclusively: But when George Galloway (in August 2014 during the last Gaza war) declared Bradford “an Israel-free zone”; when French Jews are unable to wear a yarmulke in public lest that invite assault, when Holocaust Memorial day posters are defaced, it is evident that what we are dealing with is, in Professor Alan Johnson’s accurate coinage, “anti-semitic anti-Zionism.”... In the 19th century virtual vampirism was added to the antisemitic canon. And the left made its contribution to this refreshment of old poison… Hess concluded that only self-determination could protect the Jews from the phobias of right and left alike. He became the first socialist Zionist. (here)
Pretty much everyone else cited as discussing “anti-Semitic anti-Zionism” used that phrase one time in a general way where antisemtic is just a an adjective describing anti-Zionism and never in reference to a form of antisemitism exclusive to left-wing rhetoric. As a result, most of the citations don’t count towards the notability of Johnson’s version of “anti-Semitic anti-Zionism.” Is there something else that links all of these sources together in a way that’s unique to other descriptions of new antisemitism? I don’t know, but it’s not left-wing-only-anti-Semitic anti-Zionism. PermStrump(talk) 05:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • At first arguments raised here seemed a similar to notability issues raised about Islamo-Leftism. It is the sturm und drang on this page that seems excessive.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anti-semitic_anti-Zionism&oldid=1069516446"