Talk:Jean-Christophe Rufin

Translation

Bhouston, did you translate the French article yourself? If so, could you please add the French alongside it? See WP:RS#Sources_in_languages_other_than_English. When I've translated something, the way I handle it is to add the original language sentences in italics in parentheses after my translation. That goes for the headline too. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

New Anti-Semitism verse Anti-Semitism and Original Research

The original article is entitled "Chantier sur la lutte contre le racisms et l'antisemitisme" which translates to "Report on the fight against racism and anti-Semitism" -- it does not use the term "new anti-Semitism" in the title. The US State Department report you cite, which covers briefly Rugin, (see [1]) does not use the term "new anti-Semitism" in its review of Rufin's report. The US State department report does refer to his report on "racism and anti-Semitism" at least twice in that fashion though. The quote you have from Rufin's report also does not use thet term "new anti-Semitism." I suggest that you are putting in your own intrepretation. Even if he does somewhere eventually make reference to "new anti-Semitism" in the report, it is not the core component of the report and thus I would say that it does not belong in the title summary of the section but rather the term "Anti Semitism" (as per the original report title). --Deodar 15:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

"Chantier" would rather translates as "Work in progress" rather than "report". MarmotteiNoZ 14:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't have to use it in the title. He used it. That's what was new about his report i.e. he said the anti-Semitism in France wasn't coming mainly from the usual suspects, but from the left.

Also, when I asked for a translation, I meant of the newspaper article you quoted. There are plenty of English language sources about this report, so please either use them or provide a translation of the French article you used. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

BHouston, if you're not familiar with the report, why do you keep changing it back to anti-Semitism? In fact, he talked about new anti-Semitism. That, indeed, was the thrust of the report: that there was this new phenomenon, and there are plenty of sources. It's fine to revert and request a source if you genuinely doubt the truth of something, but you should at least briefly look for a source yourself, or simply request one on talk. But to revert for the sake of it without even looking isn't acceptable. Here is your source, a quote from the report:

"The new anti-Semitism seems more heterogeneous than believed by those who see it as a problem specifically among people of Maghreb [North African] origin and as a natural consequence of events in the Middle East." [2]

I see now that there was already a source for it in the article. Please don't revert war over material that is accurate, relevant, and sourced. It suggests you have an agenda. I hope that's not the case. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I haven't seen Rufin say that the new anti-Semitism was coming from the left -- he may say things you intrepret as that but that is different. In the quote above he seems to be using the term "new" to mean recent (since his report is about a recent upsurge in anti-Semitism) rather than as a reference to the specific concept of "New Anti-Semitism" - which I understand is a specific concept that is different from anti-Semitism in current times, it is a specific theory of anti-Semitism on the left. Quote Rufin to make the point, don't intrepret him and I won't have a problem. I also think a separate article would be the best way to handle it since we are working within a biography of Rufin -- and this is not Rufin's main life focus -- and it would be easier to cite the report from the various relevant articles if it was its own article. Also feel free to quote reputable individuals connecting Rufin's report to the concept of anti-Semitism on the left -- since I am sure there are some. --Deodar 20:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The issue is selective focus. I have summarized the report as per the US State Department summary -- so close right now that is could almost be a copyvio though. That needs to be addressed. I recommend that a separate article be created to deal with the details of the report, commentary on it and criticism etc. For now I have posted the removed sections below:

"He recommended in a report to the French government that allegations against the State of Israel that it is racist and practises "apartheid" be criminalized in France on the grounds that it is a "perverse and defamatory use of the charge of racism against those very people who were victims of racism to an unparalleled degree." He wrote:

[T]here is no question of penalising political opinions that are critical, for example, of any government and are perfectly legitimate. What should be penalised in the perverse and defamatory use of the charge of racism against those very people who were victims of racism to an unparalleled degree. The accusations of racism, of apartheid, of Nazism carry extremely grave moral implications. These accusations have, in the situation in which we find ourselves today, major consequences which can, by contagion, put in danger the lives of our Jewish citizens. It is why we invite reflection on the advisability and applicability of a law ... which would permit the punishment of those who make without foundation against groups, institutions or states accusations of racism and utilise for these accusations unjustified comparisons with apartheid or Nazism."

Norman G. Finkelstein described Rufin's report as "truly terrifying", reflecting "a totalitarian cast of mind" with an "attendant stigmatizing of dissent as a disease that must be wiped out by the state".

Rufin wrote in response to the controversy that he regreted the oversimplified presentation of his report in the media, in particular the conflation of anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism. He also reiterated his believe that it was the very young -- often immigrants but not necessarily north Africians -- who due to social frustration and many discriminations themselves that made then suspectible to the dangerous ideologies."

--Deodar 20:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Rufin is not the youngest member of the Académie française anymore. Dany Laferrière was born a year after in 1953. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.33.64.216 (talk) 19:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

References