Talk:New antisemitism/Flannery Section

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Flannery section 1.1 Response 1.2 To Slim and Jay 1.3 Updated remarks 1.4 Question for Jay 1.5 About "Original Research" 1.5.1 A thought

[edit] Flannery section

I have decided to remove this paragraph from the article:

In The Anguish of the Jews: Twenty-Three Centuries of Antisemitism, Father Edward H. Flannery writes that, because most of the spectacular displays of antisemitism have come from the right — for example, Czarist pogroms, the Dreyfus Affair, and Adolf Hitler — it has blinded onlookers to what he calls an "uninterrupted strain of antisemitism on the Left," ^[1] quoting Dennis Prager and Joseph Telushkin who write: "The further Left one goes, the greater the antisemitism." ^[2] Flannery writes that it came as no surprise to historians of the left that, as William D. Rubinstein wrote in 1978: "Today, the main enemies of the Jews and Israel are almost exclusively on the left, most obviously the Communist states, the radical Third World anti-Zionist nations and their sympathizers in the West." ^[3] Flannery argues that "all the progenitors of socialist theory, with the exception of St Simon, were bitter antisemites," ^[1] arguing that Marx and Engels took much of what Flannery calls their antisemitism from Proudhon, Bauer, Fourier, Toussenel, and Fichte. Flannery writes that in 1891, the Second International Socialist Congress refused to condemn antisemitism without also condemning philosemitism. He cites historian Zosa Szajkowski, who writes that he could not find a "single word on behalf of Jews" in the entirety of French socialist literature from 1820 to 1920. The link between antisemitism and the ideology of the left is "not accidental," Flannery argues, because Judaism stresses nationality, peoplehood, or religious commitment; extreme leftist ideologies and traditional Judaism are "almost by definition incompatible." ^[4]

There are several reasons why this paragraph does not meet the standards of encyclopedic inclusion. I've explained my reasons in detail, and have provided sub-headers for the benefit of readers.

I would request that anyone who wishes to respond please do so after the end of this post.

Sorry, it's too much to remember. I'll have to respond in between paras. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You could have just cut-and-pasted, you know. CJCurrie 22:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevance to the NAS article

The parts of Flannery's book referenced in this paragraph relate to a supposed "uninterrupted strain of antisemitism on the Left". Leaving aside the accuracy or inaccuracy of this charge, Flannery's evidence is not relevant to the concept of a "new antisemitism".

The problems of defining "new antisemitism" have been raised many times in discussions concerning this article, such that it may be impossible to find a definition that satisfies everyone. The term is currently defined on the article page as referring to the concept of a recent convergence of antisemitic thought and action involving three distinct ideologies: the far right, the left, and radical Islam. Previous versions of the article suggested that it was primarily a concept applied to the left, and specifically to the New Left. Some authors have used the term primarily in reference to radical Islam, while others have used it in a different sense, synonymous with "contemporary antisemitism".

Notwithstanding their differences, however, these definitions are linked by a common theme: they all refer to perceived developments in contemporary history. The excerpted portions of Flannery's text do not.

"NAS" is not defined as "antisemitism of the left", nor is it defined in terms of a linear progression of historical events dating back to the 19th century (which would be an absurdity for a "new" concept.) The fact that Proudhon and Fourier were antisemites is relevant to studies of Proudhon and Fourier, but not to the concept of a "new antisemitism". Similarly, the 1891 resolution of the Second International may or may not be relevant to a history of 19th century antisemitism, but it is clearly irrelevant to this page.

It is defined in part as an antisemitism of the left, and some commentators focus almost exclusively on this aspect of it. [1] The Flannery material indicates that this is not new, and it provides a background to the development of the concept, as do the other sources in that section. Why single out Flannery? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It might have something to do with the fact that Flannery posits a connection between *19th century* socialism and modern antisemitism, which is clearly beyond the range of this article. (Seriously, has anyone else tried to claim *Proudhon and Fourier* as spiritual heirs to "NAS".) I could add in passing that Flannery's "continuous line" ignores a long period when Left groups supported Zionism as a national liberation movement. CJCurrie 22:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, you do realize what WP:NOR and WP:V are about? Flannery is a reliable source, and that's his view; it's not up to you to reject him because your personal analysis of history differs from his. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I've presented evidence that Flannery's 1985 edition is not a reliable source. You've ignored it. CJCurrie 17:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Source credibility

There are two editions of Edward Flannery's "The Anguish of the Jews". The first was published in 1965 by Macmillan Press. The second was issued in 1985 by Stimulus Books, a division of the Paulist Press (which mostly publishes Catholic devotional material). Copyright in the latter is owned by the Roman Catholic Bishop of Providence. There are significant differences between these books, and some sections (including the text referenced above) appear only in the second.

The original edition was released by a respected firm, and is recognized as being a work of scholarly merit. The second version was issued by a religious press, and there is some reason to believe that it may not have been adequately vetted (see below).

The circumstances of the Second Edition's publication can't help but draw into question its reliability as a source. (Are we really to be surprised that a book issed by the Catholic Church at the height of the Cold War would include sections attacking socialism?)

I don't see what this has to do with anything. Flannery was the author of both editions. He is our source. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

One edition was published by a credible source, the other was effectively self-published through a religious organization. I'm sorry you can't see the difference. CJCurrie 22:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Flannery is a reliable source, and of course what is relevant are his most recent views, not his earlier views. Again, your personal views about possible errors in Flannery's analysis are pure original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I've presented evidence that Flannery's 1985 edition is not a reliable source. You've ignored it. CJCurrie 17:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistency

Flannery's comments on the relationship between antisemitism and socialism underwent a significant transformation between 1965 and 1985.

Consider the following statement from the 1965 edition:

Toussenel ranks high among the high priests of so-called Socialist anti-Semitism, which enlisted in varying degrees such names as Pierre Proudhon, Karl Marx, Bruno Bauer, and lesser lights, all of whom trained their guns on Jewish "unproductiveness," "parasitism," and the like. The association of Socialism with anti-Semitism was unsubstantial, however, and did not survive the condemnation of the anti-Semitic movement by the International Socialist Congress of 1891. After this, anti-Semitism became quite consistently a phenomenon of conservatism or the anti-democratic right. (p. 176)

Now, consider this revised statement from 1985:

Toussenel ranks high among the high priests of socialist antisemitism, which enlisted in varying degrees such names as Pierre Proudhon, Karl Marx, Bruno Bauer, and lesser lights, all of whom trained their guns on Jewish "unproductiveness", "parasitism," and the like. The association of Socialist with antisemitism came to an end officially with the condemnation of the antisemitic movement at the International Socialist Congress of 1891, but this did not spell its end in socialist reality. On the other hand, increasingly and more consistently antisemitism became an attribute of conservatism and the anti-democratic right. (p. 177)

It would be interesting to speculate on the reasons for this change, and particularly on whether or not it had anything to do with increased criticism of Israel from the Left after 1967. One way or the other, it seems inappropriate for us to reference Flannery's 1985 comments on antisemitism and socialism without drawing his 1965 comments into the picture in some way.

You're engaged in OR. This is what the author wrote, period. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

My point is that we shouldn't convey Flannery's 1985 argument without also conveying his 1965 argument. CJCurrie 22:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. His views may have evolved, but you can't use original research to try to revert his most current views, based on earlier works. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I've argued that we should provide *both* statements, or neither. And, anyway, the 1985 edition is demonstrably less reliable than the 1965 edition. CJCurrie 17:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Demonstrably poor scholarship

Most of the cited text is taken from two paragraphs on p. 274 of Flannery's 1985 edition:

Antisemitism is generally considered by both Jews and non-Jews to be a phenomenon of the Right. And certainly in modern times its most spectacular displays, exemplified by Czarist pogroms, the Dreyfus Affair, Hitler, and chauvinistic demagogues, have tended to justify that interpretation. But this view has tended to eclipse the fact that there has been an uninterrupted strain of antisemitism on the Left.[33] It should not, further, obscure the recrudescence of leftist antisemitism that has developed since the rebirth of the State of Israel. Indeed at present leftist "anti-Zionism" predominates on the antisemitic spectrum - a spectrum running leftward from liberal to socialist to radical to Communist. Prager and Telushkin put the matter succinctly: "The further Left one goes, the greater the antisemitism."[34] W.D. Rubenstein is no less direct: "Today, the main enemies of the Jews and Israel are almost exclusively on the left, most obviously the Communist states, the radical Third World anti-Zionist nations and their sympathizers in the West."[35]

This development comes as no surprise to historians of leftist ideology. From its inception socialist thought took on an antisemitic turn. All the progenitors of socialist theory, with the exception of St. Simon, were bitter antisemites. Marx learned much of his own antisemitism from Proudhon, Bauer, Fourier, Toussenel, Fichte, and others, as did also Engels. The Protocols came from socialist sources. In 1891, the Second International Socialist Congress refused to condemn antisemitism without condemning philosemitism at the same time. During the Dreyfus affair socialist leaders refused to counter the rightist attack on the Jewish army officer. Historian Zosa Szajkowski, writing in 1947 after a close study of French socialist literature, concluded that he could not find a single word on behalf of the Jews in the whole of that literature from 1820 to 1920. [36]

There are a number of problems here.

Szajkowski

There is one (1) footnote for the second paragraph:

See Zosa Szajkowski, "The Jewish Saint-Simonians and Socialist Antisemitism in France" in Jewish Social Studies, January, 1947, cited in Prager and Telushkin, op. cit., p. 142.

It's a shame that Flannery didn't take the time to check the original source. If he had, he might have discovered this statement: "In quoting only the antisemitic pronouncements of the French socialists, before Edouard Drumont, the writer may be suspected of having ignored the pro-Jewish sentiments. In order to ally any such suspicion, the writer wishes therefore to say explicitly that his efforts to find sympathetic references to Jews in the French socialist literature, from Saint-Simon to the date of Drumont's first appearance, have been futile" (p. 60) Drumont's first appearance was in 1886.

Flannery might have also discovered the following statement, had he looked up the original essay: "It was not until antisemitism had joined hands with the "Boulangist" reaction (1889) that some socialist groups have become aware of the danger and started to fight against antisemitism" (p. 59; tense error in original). He certainly wouldn't have made his lunatic suggestion that Szajkowski found not "a single word on behalf of the Jews" in French socialist literature before *1920*, nor would he have suggested the "all the progenitors of socialist theory, with the exception of St. Simon, were bitter antisemites".

(I should add that Szajkowski's essay is an erudite scholarly piece, and deserves a better legacy than being used to prop up Father Flannery's efforts to malign the Left as antisemitic. An interesting fact I learned from the essay is that Fourier apparently concealed his antisemitism behind facetious support for a plan to move Europe's Jews en masse to Palestine.)

Dreyfus

During the Dreyfus affair socialist leaders refused to counter the rightist attack on the Jewish army officer.

This statement is profoundly misleading. It's true that the "integral" faction of French socialism didn't participate in the campaign to exonerate Dreyfus (see Szajkowski, p. 59), but someone of Flannery's experience must surely have known that *most* French socialist leaders were active Dreyfusards. For him to suggest otherwise is intellectually dishonest, and for *us* to repeat this suggestion is profoundly unencyclopedic.

Protocols

On the subject of lunatic suggestions, may I assume that no one reviewing this page is willing to defend Flannery's unreferenced suggestion that "Protocols" was derived from socialist sources?

Summary

In light of these errors, I do not believe that the 1985 edition of Flannery's book should be considered a reliable source for the history of "new antisemitism".

I see that SlimVirgin didn't respond to this section. CJCurrie 22:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course not. You continue to engage in original research in your efforts to refute Flannery's work. However, Flannery is a reliable source; you, on the other hand, are an anonymous Wikipedia editor. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I've presented evidence that Flannery's 1985 edition is not a reliable source. You've ignored it, and I suspect that you're not taking the process seriously. How on earth is it possible for you to twist "OR" and "V" to suggest that we should present Flannery's demonstrably false statements as fact? CJCurrie 17:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You're engaged in OR. Please read the policy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I have (read it), and I'm not. Feel free to demonstrate otherwise, if you can. CJCurrie 19:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Probable misrepresentation

Our summary describes Prager and Telushkin as having written, "The further Left one goes, the greater the antisemitism." This comment is presented in isolation, and without further clarification as to their intentions. The effect may be to have readers believe Prager and Telushkin were referring to a "left to right" spectrum. To judge from Flannery's remarks, however, it appears more likely that they were referring to a "left to *centre*" spectrum.

Unfortunately, I was not able to obtain a copy of Prager and Telushkin's book before writing my comments. I suspect, however, that the current edit may be a distortion of their true intentions. I am not suggesting that this was deliberate.

This is all your original research. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's my evaluation of the way Flannery presents the source. The current article statement is for all intents and purposes a selective half-quote. CJCurrie 22:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

In other words, more original research attempts to refute Flannery's work. Where has your refutation been published? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I've presented evidence that Flannery's 1985 edition is not a reliable source. You've ignored it. I don't need to publish a refutation to justify *removing* an unreliable source from the article. CJCurrie 17:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Sliding definitions

Flannery's statement that "Extreme leftist ideologies and traditional Judaism are almost by definition incompatible" is not relevant to this article. Opposition to "traditional Judaism" is not, in and of itself, generally recognized as sufficient proof of antisemitism, let alone of "new antisemitism". (Are secular Jews who reject their religious backgrounds automatically considered antisemites? Of course not. For that matter, are Reform Jews who reject Kashrut considered antisemites? Of course not.)

He writes: "Extreme leftist ideologies and traditional Judaism are almost by definition incompatible." He doesn't say that opposition to traditional Judaism must be antisemitism; nor is not keeping kosher opposition to Judaism. This is all your own opinion, CJC, and you're slipping and sliding between topics making category errors. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

If he's not saying it's antisemitism, then why are we including it in this article? CJCurrie 22:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It may be possible to incorporate Flannery's statements on the Left and particularism into the article, but I doubt there's any compelling need to do this in light of his credibility issues on other fronts.

Summary

For all of these reasons, it is clear to me that the Flannery paragraph is not encyclopedic, and needs to be removed from the article. It may be possible to restore Rubinstein's quote at some point in the future, but only if we reference the original source.

I've put a fair bit of time into researching these matters. I trust that any editor who wishes to restore the Flannery paragraph will review my comments, and address my arguments.

Please add your comments after this line. CJCurrie 06:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response

• CJC, you've done everything possible since you started editing this article to remove references to left-wing antisemitism. It's unseemly, it's wrong-headed, and it's pointless. There's a lot of it around, and increasingly so; every week more articles are published about it. You're swimming against the tide trying to pretend it doesn't exist. Flannery provides some background indicating that it's nothing new. This will give the reader an interesting context within which to study the development of the concept of NAS, and we're here to provide exactly that kind of background material. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Slim, whoever doubted that there was some antisemitism on the left? I've never objected to actual left-wing antisemitism being highlighted in this article, as appropriate. What I'm opposing is an attempt to use flawed scholarship to suggest a "continuous line" of antisemitism dominating the left. CJCurrie 22:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Please note: Itsmejudith's next post is a response to my original statement, not to SlimVirgin. CJCurrie 22:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Agree, as you would expect. Since Flannery's book was first published in 1965 it cannot be relevant to the definition in the second paragraph of the article, that NAS is the upsurge in antisemitism after 2001. It seems to me, again, that we need good articles on the History of antisemitism in the 19th century, to which the Flannery comments cited here seem to apply, History of antisemitism in the 20th century and History of antisemitism in the 21st century.Itsmejudith 09:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

This is an impressive and well-researched argument, CJ. I fully concur with your conclusions here. john k 21:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Disagree with continual attempts to bury antisemitism from the left. It astonishes me that the history section can contain statements from Pierre-André Taguieff regarding antisemitism from the left following the 1967 Six-Day War, a whole long section about Forster and Epstein's 1974 book (inserted only so that the "famous scholar" - i.e. anti-Zionist polemicist Allen Brownfeld can insert his own political views attempting to refute the concept), statements from Robert Wistrich Abba Eban in the 1980s regarding the phenomenon, etc., yet people here can still claim that it is all about "the upsurge in antisemitism after 2001", and attempt to exclude Flannery on those grounds. Why was there no objection when the Brownfeld material about books in the 1970s was inserted, yet Flannery's material is somehow too early? If those who object to the concept want to be taken seriously, they must start reading the article, reading ALL the relevant material, and editing with the intent of elucidating, not obfuscating. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• • There's a bit of a difference between the 1970s and the 19th century, Jay. Meanwhile, I see you haven't actually responded to any of my arguments. CJCurrie 22:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well if you want to look at it like that then there was even more left-wing anti-semitism in the 19th century. This is due to the fact that during the period of the great European empires the dominant left-wing ideology was essentially various forms of nationalism. We all know how tolerant they can be.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • They've already been responded to; in a nutshell, your original research regarding sources doesn't really trump WP:V. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Have you read my initial comments, Jay? CJCurrie 05:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Yes. Have you read WP:NOR and WP:V? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Yes, and I've presented evidence that Flannery's 1985 edition is not a reliable source. You've ignored it, and I don't believe that you're taking the process seriously. "NOR" was never meant to be used as a justification for retaining obviously unsuitable material. CJCurrie 17:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
            • You're engaged in your own original research in order to denigrate a source that you disagree with. If Flannery had been writing about right-wing antisemitism, you wouldn't bat an eyelid about him being used. Please read the content policies. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
              • I've read the policies, and they don't apply here. If I were trying to submit information *on an article page* that Flannery's source is unreliable, then I'd be in violation of NOR ... but there's nothing in the policy that prevents me from *removing* information on the grounds that the source is unreliable. And stop the personal abuse, please. CJCurrie 19:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
                • Of course NOR applies. You're imposing on the source your own opinion of the issues, then trying to rule the source out on that basis. The point is that left-wing antisemitism is a major part of NAS, and so in the history section we give some information about what people have said about the existence of left-wing antisemitism prior to the emergence of the concept. Flannery is one the best known writers on the history of AS, and so we use him. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • • • • • Isn't there a little humor in accusing somebody of "engaging" in original research? And to mean by that, when somebody looks through a source and finds it actually says something else? I'm pretty sure this situation needs a comic more than it needs a debate... Mackan79 19:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
                  • Indeed. I can't believe this is even being raised as a serious argument. (Meanwhile, I will reiterate the "NAS" is *not* "a history of left-wing antisemitism", and the material on Fourier, Proudhon et al is completely irrelevant.) CJCurrie 20:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
                    • In your opinion, it is completely irrelevant. You must write to the publishers of the book to complain. In the meantime, we have chosen a classic history of antisemitism from which to quote a few points about the author's view on the background to leftwing antisemitism, which he concludes is no surprise because the values of traditional Judaism and the values of the far left are, in his opinion, incompatible. It doesn't matter whether you agree. It doesn't matter whether you think he's a lunatic. His book is well known in antisemitism studies, and that is what he says. Period. And the history of NAS is very much related to the history of leftwing antisemitism. I know this makes you shudder, but left-wing antisemitism is the major aspect of the NAS concept. As long as I've seen you editing here, you've never understood that neither the article nor its talk page are the place for your personal opinions and original research. If you have other arguments against the inclusion of that paragraph, I'm willing to listen to them, or if you think it should be written differently, or shortened or whatever, but that you don't like what he says is not a reason to remove it. Or if Mel comes up with an argument against, I'll abide by his decision. But I can't listen to you try for the thousandth time to get rid of a source because you want to protect the left from allegations of antisemitism. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
                      • Slim, Edward Flannery's *1965* book is a classic history of antisemitism. His 1985 "updated version" is a unreliable and unworthy follow-up, which wasn't even published by an accredited firm. You're playing on confusion between the two editions to keep flawed, unreliable and in at least one case *false* information included the article. Btw, I didn't say *Flannery* was a lunatic: I said that two of his assertions were sheer lunacy (and I stand by this). I'm not going to respond to your personal attacks, but I'll reiterate that the views of early 19th century socialists are irrelevant to this article. I maintain that any fair-minded, uninvolved party will agree with my conclusions. Cheers, CJCurrie 22:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

May I please reiterate my request that any editor who wishes to restore the Flannery paragraph please review my comments, and address my arguments. CJCurrie 01:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm truly baffled as to how to interpret this: [2]. CJCurrie 09:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Who are you that you think you should be allowed to delete whatever you want prior to discussion, but everyone else MUST discuss before they restore it? I'm sure it's no cooincidence that you want to get rid of someone who talks about the "uninterrupted strain of antisemitism on the Left." Please stop being so predictable. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Slim, I took the time to prepare a detailed explanation of why the Flannery section is inappropriate for the article. I avoided personal abuse, and focused on evidence. Could you please do the same, if you want the section returned?

And to answer your question, I deleted the section because it obviously didn't meet the standard for inclusion, in light of my investigations. Do you honestly think it should be returned? CJCurrie 09:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You posted your explanation of the deletion one minute before removing the material i.e. prior to any discussion. Could you explain why you feel you are allowed to do this, but others must discuss before restoring it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

With respect, Slim, I think this we're getting a bit off-track. I'm "entitled" to remove material that's obviously unsuitable for the article, and I've explained in detail why I made that decision in this instance. If entitlement is the issue, I could just as easily ask why you initially included the paragraph with no prior discussion.

The question we should be addressing is the following: does the Flannery material belong in the article? So far, you have not addressed any of my arguments. CJCurrie 09:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

We're not getting off track. If you're entitled to remove without discussion, others are entitled to restore and ask you to discuss it first. Do not remove it again until there has been a proper discussion about it, because there are people who disagree with you. Practise what you preach, please. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Slim, have you read my original comments? CJCurrie 09:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I haven't because they're so long, but if you stop reverting, I'll read them and try to address your points, and then perhaps we could try to have a civilized discussion instead of the usual reverting and carping. I know it sounds unlikely but I live in hope. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm prepared to leave the Flannery paragraph on the page for as long as another day, if you promise to read my comments during that time. I'm not at all impressed that you would restore the paragraph three times without so much as reviewing my arguments. CJCurrie 10:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

And I'm not impressed that you think it's okay to keep on removing something over objections. If you post material as lengthy as you have, in fairness you have to allow people a few days to read and respond to it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

If you read my comments fairly, you'll understand why it would be inappropriate to leave the paragraph in place for that long. CJCurrie 10:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• For now I'll say this: based on what I've seen, I can't go as far as calling Flannery completely irrelevant, since it does speak to the debate about whether "New Antisemitism" is actually new. The conflict between the two editions, though, seems a much more serious issue. To that, I'll simply say the the two things which particularly raise flags for me are the "The further left the more antisemitism" statement, and the "Nobody could find a positive word" statement, simply because they're little rhetorical bombshells, presented offhand, and both two degrees from the original context. In that situation, I think you can present an individual's general argument, but you shouldn't quote little snippets of highly controversial evidence in a way that obscures the original meaning (left of center or left of right or what? As CJ nicely points out). Other than that, I wouldn't insist on removing everything, but I think CJ makes a good case that the whole thing needs an update, which may well make it unsuitable. Mackan79 19:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, for "The further left the more antisemitism" check out Bakunin#Anti-Semitism. <<-armon->> 13:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Agree that the paragraph should be removed. CJ has made a detailed case (talk page original research of the very best kind) for why the 1985 edition is not an RS. The only attempted rebuttal to this has been the claim that "Flannery was the author of both editions. He is our source." This is sophistry. Reliable-source status is not a permanent and inalienable endowment of biographical persons; it arises from a configuration of factors surrounding the publication of any given material (as anyone who's ever tried to cite material from a prominent person's blog, for example, will know very well). Flannery hasn't taken a swan-dive into intellectual ignominy á la David Irving, but he does appear to have untethered himself from the rigors of vetted scholarship and dropped gently into the bosom of a religious press, where he is free to enjoy the languors of self-publication and make grotesque farm-league errors of the sort CJ catalogues. Until we see a serious rebuttal to CJ on this point, the 1985 edition is out. As for the 1965 edition, for us to imply and endorse the explanatory relevance of a book published two years before the earliest postulated appearance of the phenomenon under discussion – ! – is article-page original research of the very worst kind.--G-Dett 22:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Moot I'm truly amazed at this complete flouting of WP:OR and WP:V -hello, "verifiability, not truth". This is more than original research, it's oppo on an RS the editor doesn't agree with. This is completely beyond scope. Imagine if we were to start "fact-checking" the millions of sources in WP to the same degree! The later edition loses RS status because it was published by Catholics during the cold war? C'mon, there are any number of equally plausible theories we could advance for him shifting publishers. However, unless you've got an RS -not some wild theory- noting some sort of decline in his scholarship, it's simply a moot point. Well crafted though -I'll grant him that. That must explain how it's seduced a few editors here. <<-armon->> 13:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

OR means putting original research into articles. Looking back at sources and checking their citations is something we should be doing, and I'm impressed that CJCurrie has done so. The idea that we should discourage such things is ridiculous. CJCurrie is suggesting that we remove information from an article because it is inaccurate, and he has provided plenty of sources to demonstrate this inaccuracy. The idea that it should be included anyway because what CJ has done constitutes "original research" seems entirely mystifying to me. It seems to me that including Flannery and implying that his comments have anything to do with "new antisemitism" is a "novel synthesis," and as such, is much more clearly an instance of original research than anything CJCurrie has done. john k 14:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The statements are clearly attributed to Flannery. We have not made the claims, someone in an RS has. Like I said, -moot. Let's pick another example. Suppose I wanted to take issue with Tariq Ali's statement that Israel is "the strongest state in the region. It possesses real, not imaginary, weapons of mass destruction. It possesses more tanks and bomber jets and pilots than the rest of the Arab world put together." I could go, do a bunch of OR about the aggregate military strength of the "Arab world" (I could define this loosely if I liked) and could possibly produce an equally well-crafted dissertation on Ali's "unreliability", and blah blah blah. It's mission creep of the worst sort, and any topic touching on ME issues is contentious enough without it. Hmmm, maybe that's why WP:V exists? <<-armon->> 02:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, maybe that's why WP:V exists?

To permit false information to be included in articles? I doubt it.

Seriously, why are people so keen to allow a demonstrably untrue piece of information to be retained? CJCurrie 02:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

"Verifiability, not truth" is to stop WP editors from engaging in utterly pointless arguments with sources. It's not our job. As for why I'm "so keen to allow a demonstrably untrue piece of information to be retained" -it's because I'm also not interested in doing a pointless peer-review of your work. I'm lazy that way. <<-armon->> 03:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I doubt anything I say will make any difference to you one way or the other, but it's entirely our job to confirm the reliability of sources.

My interlocuters seem to have taken the absurd position that we should include material which is false, but verifiable. As they obviously aren't taking this seriously, I can't see any way forward besides mediation. CJCurrie 03:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

But what would be the point? <<-armon->> 04:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

To resolve this silliness as soon as possible. Feel free not to participate, if the prospect doesn't interest you. CJCurrie 04:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

OK then drop it. Look, at every step in the chain of dispute resolution you're going to be told pretty much the exact same thing I just did. You're only going to cause yourself stress by pursuing a lost cause like this. <<-armon->> 01:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Armon, your point about mission creep deserves careful thought. But the Tariq Ali analogy isn't a very good one. It's a rhetorical statement; it's the kind of thing a reader will already take with a grain of salt. What if Tariq Ali, in a self-published book, grossly misquoted someone? What if he wrote, relying on faulty memory in an unvetted volume, that Alan Dershowitz had argued for the sudden, unannounced destruction of entire Palestinian villages in retaliation for terrorist acts? (Dershowitz argued that the IDF should do this 24 hours after an announcement, so that residents would have the chance to evacuate). Would it be acceptable for us to simply repeat the mistake – in our own words, no less? This is the kind of analogy we have to consider.--G-Dett 03:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See above. <<-armon->> 03:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• • My "wild theory" involved looking up an essay from 1947 and discovering that it had been misused. CJCurrie 01:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion that the essay was "misused" is, frankly, worthless. Sorry, Flannery trumps anon Wikipedia editor. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Jay, could you explain why you're insisting on including factually inaccurate information in the article? (Hasn't anyone else looked up Szajkowski's essay by now?) CJCurrie 01:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Please review leading question. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

My question is both accurate and appropriate. Flannery makes a false statement about Szajkowski's essay, which our article repeats. It's remarkable that you and SlimVirgin would defend retention of this reference. CJCurrie 01:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

To repeat: why are you restoring factually inaccurate information to the article? CJCurrie 02:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Jay, you've chosen to revert, on the rhetorical grounds that Flannery trumps CJ. Can I ask why you've left this sentence in: "He cites historian Zosa Szajkowski, who writes that he could not find a 'single word on behalf of Jews' in the entirety of French socialist literature from 1820 to 1920," which we know now to be false? Let us bracket for the moment the question of whether Flannery belongs at all. You think he does, so you restore him. But why not at least correct the sentence? Or at the very least, quote Flannery at greater length, so the falsehood is in his words and not ours? I'm not suggesting that this would suffice; I'm just trying to understand your negotiating posture. Is the point to show maximum contempt for CJ, as your edit summaries and posts here would suggest? Or do you not trust his legwork and believe him to be lying? Or is there a categorical principle involved here for you, that Wikipedia editors are to treat as infallible any assertions made by an RS? That even a modest editorial decision to put dubious claims in quotation marks, for example, rather than in free-indirect, so as to put a buffer between the voice of Wikipedia and manifestly false statements, would constitute OR? If there is some other principle involved, could you explain it please – in reasoned, detailed sentences, and not another crypto-sarcastic diktat?--G-Dett 02:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To Slim and Jay

I notice that neither one of you has directly addressed my arguments concerning the unsuitability of Flannery's arguments to this article. That's unfortunate, but not entirely surprising. What I find a bit more troubling is that neither of you has made any efforts to even *correct* the paragraph, based on what I've written. In its current form, the article presents Flannery's flawed scholarship as though it were accurate and credible. This is clearly unacceptable.

Seriously, does either of you honestly believe that a neutral editor (Mel Etitis, for instance, or Jmabel) would favour retention of the Flannery paragraph in light of the arguments I've presented? I doubt it.

The current Flannery paragraph is remarkably unencyclopedic, and has absolutely no business being here. I'm going to remove it again, and I'm going to request that you not restore it. If you want to return it in a revised form, please discuss it on the talk page first. CJCurrie 22:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd have no objection to asking Mel Etitis to take a look, and I'd be willing to stick by his decision. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I've already asked Mel to review the controversy. He hasn't responded yet. CJCurrie 16:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

(And no, I didn't promise to leave the paragraph in place for a full day. I said I'd leave it in place *up to* a full day, on condition that SlimVirgin take advantage of the opportunity to read my comments.) CJCurrie 22:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Stop being so pompous, please. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

HERE HERE!- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I can understand your point that the material is somewhat different than most of the article's other passages, but I think it generally follows the same line of argument that the rest of the article follows. You might disagree with the conlusions of Flannery, but wikipedia policy states that relevant material from a reputable and reliable source is permitted. I also cannot agree with everything that the author says (most of the progenitors of socialism may have been anti-Jewish religion, but I wouldn't state that most of them were necessarily anti-semitic), however I think that the jist of it is not particularly controversial.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

My feeling is that a self-published work (which for all intents and purposes the 1985 version was) which suggests "Protocols" was derived from socialist sources is not reliable. When you add in the other errors, it becomes even less so. When you add the question of relevance, it becomes profoundly unencyclopedic. (The fact that the paragraph is referenced is entirely beside the point.)

I maintain that a genuinely neutral editor would almost certainly conclude that the paragraph should be removed.

So ... how long do I have to wait before removing the paragraph again, if I'm to avoid being accused of "gaming the system"? CJCurrie 01:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It's an almost insignificant point but Flannery was not writing about the "new antisemitism". He wrote long before the rightists who inform this article had invented the term. Including the passage about him is a new low in what is already a terrible piece of POV pushing masquerading as an article. It's entirely OR to suggest that his analysis has anything whatsoever to do with the "concept" that is under "discussion" in this article. I just don't see how we can justify having a section on the "history" of something that exists mostly in the minds of contributors here and a few of the more frothy pro-Israeli commentators, when it isn't simply an epithet thrown around by those who think Israel should have carte blanche for whatever reason. Grace Note 03:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I did my best to revise it as appropriate. I have no idea who will like this or not. Possibly it only makes for a stronger argument, suggesting that Flannery saw the error of his ways. Anyway, I'm not endorsing it or anything, but simply thought it would be interesting to try it out based on CJ's new sources. Mackan79 03:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate what you're trying to do, Mackan, but I think the paragraph is beyond hope one way or the other. Why on earth should we convey *anything* from a work which posits that "Protocols" was derived from socialist sources, and has other obvious errors besides? Sorry, but I still think the paragraph has to go. CJCurrie 03:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I definitely think there's a concern that I've now given him much more weight than is appropriate. I simply think somebody had to try it to see. When I got done I had a sudden realization that probably nobody was going to like me for that one :P Mackan79 03:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Updated remarks

I had been hoping that a greater number of uninvolved and neutral editors would have provided their views on this matter by now. I'm a bit concerned that this "controversy" could soon degenerate into the usual stale bickering between SlimVirgin's supporters and SlimVirgin's opponents; a few outside voices would be useful to ensuring that this unwelcome prospect doesn't come to fruition. I thank John Kenney for weighing in on this matter, and I hope others will follow in his footsteps.

For the time being, it will probably occasion little surprise among readers that I'm not convinced by the counter-arguments of Slim and Jay. Their comments about "Original Research" are especially puzzling: the NOR policy is designed to prevent editors from *adding* unverifiable and novel research, not to prevent editors from removing obviously flawed research. I'm also uncertain as to how a source that misinterprets Szajkowski by 34 years and claims "Protocols" as socialist-derived can honestly or accurately be described as reliable. To give credit where it's due, I appreciate that Moshe hasn't resorted to any transparent policy distortions in his remarks. (Even though I disagree with his conclusions, I appreciate that Moshe is approaching this discussion in a reasonable manner.) CJCurrie 06:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that any of my compatriots have resorted to "transparent policy distortions" either.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say they did. CJCurrie 06:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

As no-one has provided a convincing reason why the paragraph should be retained, I will remove it again presently. I am fully aware of the significance of my actions, and I believe that any neutral editor reviewing this situation would conclude that the paragraph should not have been returned in the first place. I can only wonder how much longer Slim and Jay will insist on defending an obviously unsuitable source. CJCurrie 06:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Looking over it again, I had to laugh, just because the section became much more POV pro-1985-Flannery than it did undermine him (my intent wasn't to do either, but I figured by combining them it would become clear that the material didn't belong). In any case, the paragraphs are clearly out of place. This is a section on the history of New Antisemitism, not a section for controversial and dubious single-person opinions not even speaking to that topic. In the sections below, of course, that's exactly what we provide: various individual scholars' opinions on the New Antisemitism. Here, we're supposed to be providing a neutral section on the history of New Antisemitism. I'm pretty sure nobody can make the case that Flannery 1985 represents a fair and neutral chronicle of antisemitism on the left through history. Quite obviously it's two paragraphs of idiosyncratic opinion, considering that it completely reversed itself over a period of 20 years. Unless someone explains otherwise, I completely support CJCurrie's decision to remove it.Mackan79 06:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Question to Jay: Is there any basis for quoting the second less influential book rather than the first more influential book which says the opposite? Mackan79

The revised edition of a book always reflects the author's intent better, and the most recent scholarship. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Lordy, this is rich. The original version was published by a credible firm; the "revised version" was effectively self-published and is demonstrably inaccurate. I think these facts may trump the "temporal factor" somewhat. CJCurrie 01:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question for Jay

What's the logic of re-inserting Flannery's inaccurate statement about Zosa Szajkowski?

It's fairly obvious this situation is degenerating into a full-blown edit war. I'm going to refrain from removing the paragraph again for the time being, in the hope that more uninvolved editors will weigh in shortly. I maintain that the paragraph has absolutely no business being in the article, and I'm prepared to take the matter as far as formal mediation if need be.

For the moment, I'm going to put a fact-disputed notice on the section. The current edit includes the following line: "He cites historian Zosa Szajkowski, who writes that he could not find a "single word on behalf of Jews" in the entirety of French socialist literature from 1820 to 1920." Szajkowski does not write this. CJCurrie 16:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Update: I've chosen a "dubious" notice instead. Consider it as applied to the whole paragraph. CJCurrie 16:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Update: I've filed an RfC. CJCurrie 17:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Update: SlimVirgin has decided that she may arbitrarily change the content of my RfC. (I've already reverted it). CJCurrie 04:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC) See also: [3], [4]

Update: SlimVirgin has again decided that she may arbitrarily change the content of my RfC. CJCurrie 04:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Your RfC?? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I know this has gotten contentious, but my suggestion would really be to try editing the passage down, and then if it doesn't work, shoot for elimination at that point. While my attempt was a little ridiculous, I could potentially see a paragraph noting Flannery's changing position. Ideally, we'd then have a counter-source, but without going into a huge amount of detail that gives this perspective undue weight. Regarding a discussion of New Antisemitism, I think a fair treatment of historical antisemitism on the Left is relevant to the subject. What we have now simply isn't fair. It's one perspective, and actually more like half a perspective. If we could make it a fair discussion, we might be able to accomodate both sides. A categorical yes or no would be nice and easy, I'm simply skeptical it's going to resolve that way either way.

One might consider what an actual encyclopedia would say on something like this: it wouldn't be quoting one scholar at length to establish the history of a subject. That's a good way to discuss theory, but it's a bad way to establish history. Mackan79 16:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a great suggestion, Mackan79. Slim has pointed out that several writers on this topic cite Flannery; if they grant him central importance, then maybe we can refer to his work by way of their use of it. Of course, the immediate thing is to make sure we're not simply repeating and disseminating the errors in Flannery's work that CJ pointed out.--G-Dett 16:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About "Original Research"

This is the essence of Wikipedia's Original Research policy: "Articles may not contain any unpublished material, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position."

There is nothing in the policy that prevents me from challenging the reliability of a source on the talk page, nor is there anything in the policy that prevents me from removing obviously flawed information.

I hope that uninvolved parties reading this page will understand the defensive cry of "No original research" for what it is: an excuse, and a deflection. CJCurrie 19:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree – the charge here is spurious to its very core. Article pages can't have original research; talk pages can. The editorial process indeed consists of 90%+ original research, but it is rarely of this depth and judiciousness.--G-Dett 21:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Doing "original research" and presenting it on a talk page as a reason for removing material from an article cannot possibly violate any wikipedia policy. john k 23:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

John, you've always objected to the OR policy, and you're not very familar with it. We can't have editors impose their personal views on source material that's regarded by scholars of antisemitism as reliable and worth using in their own work. If other people use it, we may use it too, even if CJCurrie doesn't like it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Slim, try to avoid strawman arguments: John hasn't "objected to OR policy," he's objected to what he sees as a fallacious invocation of it. Indeed, a central element of his objection to the current interpolation of the Flannery material (and it's an objection I've voiced here as well) is that "including Flannery and implying that his comments have anything to do with 'new antisemitism' is a 'novel synthesis,'" and therefore a violation of WP:OR. --G-Dett 15:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

As G-Dett says. Additionally, your argument here seems completely untenable. An encyclopedia article has to be selective. It has to make choices about what it talks about. There is no obligation to include any particular claims, or lengthy summaries of the work of a single scholar, particularly when such claims can be demonstrated to be tendentious and dubious by looking at the sources cited by Flannery himself. And I don't object to the OR policy, and I am perfectly familiar with it. I think the OR policy is necessary and great, but that it has to be interpreted reasonably and sanely, and that there have been some problems with interpreting "OR" very broadly. In this particular case I think that the key issue is that OR policy applies to article content, not to talk page discussion. The change to the article suggested by CJCurrie is to remove the discussion of Flannery. The article sans discussion of Flannery would not contain any original research, so there is no violation of WP:NOR. The issue is not whether a change to an article is made based on "original research." It's whether the article itself becomes a vehicle for promoting original research. Removing the Flannery stuff would not make the article a vehicle for promoting CJ's critique of Flannery. It would simply remove the Flannery stuff. It would be OR to add CJ's critique of Flannery to the article, but nobody is advocating that. Furthermore, as G-Dett says above, and I have suggested before, the inclusion of Flannery's discussion of 19th century antisemitism in the context of an article about "new antisemitism" supposedly arising after 1967, at earliest, is deeply problematic. Certainly by the standards you have expressed on many previous occasions, SV, we should have to find some sources which discuss Flannery's discussion of 19th century antisemitism, in particular, in the context of a discussion of "New Antisemitism." Either way, including the Flannery material seems a lot closer to OR than removing it would be. john k 16:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A thought

One of the guiding principles of Wikipedia's editorial policy is that verifiability, rather than truth, is the standard for any piece of information to be included on an article page. That is, editors who wish to include *accurate* information on an article page must be able to demonstrate that the information has been published by a credible source.

This policy is meant to prevent editors from disseminating unverifiable personal knowledge (eg. "Celebrity X ran over my dog!"), and from promoting novel and untested theories (eg. "Were we too quick to dismiss phrenology?").

To judge from recent discussions, however, this principle may be open to abuse and misinterpretation. Slim, Jay et al almost seem to have inverted the principle, to suggest that demonstrably *inaccurate* information may be deemed encyclopedic if it appears in a reliable source (what?). They also seem to be suggesting that efforts to demonstrate the inaccuracy of such information are contrary to Wikipedia policy. This, of course, is nonsense.

I had hoped that neutral editors would have weighed in the Flannery controversy by now. Since that hasn't happened, I will remove the paragraph again. I make no apologies for doing this, as I emphatically do not require anyone's permission to remove demonstrably false information from the article.

To anyone who wishes to return the paragraph, I offer the following challenge: Why should we include false, misleading and irrelevant material from a book that was for all intents and purposes self-published? ("But the author wrote a classic study twenty years earlier!" is not a suitable response.) CJCurrie 01:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Please review leading question. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Should we just take this to mediation now, given that your side doesn't seem interested in debating the substance of the issue? CJCurrie 01:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)