Talk:New antisemitism/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

On another matter

Why have certain editors restored the phrase, "the Left and its opposition to Zionism", when the premise of the phrase is demonstrably false? CJCurrie 04:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The sources refer to it. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

And evidence to the contrary doesn't count? CJCurrie 22:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Arguments to the contrary from reliable sources count; "evidence" to the contrary is original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Is Tikkun newspaper a reliable source? CJCurrie 22:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Does the Tikkun reference discuss the New anti-Semitism or Anti-Semitism from the left? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Why are you posing that particular question? (Don't answer, read on.)

The current wording is as follows: Proponents of the new anti-Semitism believe that the recent rise in anti-Semitism is associated with the Left and its opposition to Zionism and to the existence of the state of Israel as a Jewish homeland.

By endorsing this wording, we (collectively as Wikipedians) are describing "the Left and its opposition to Zionism" as an identifiable phenomenon. If we alter the wording to read, "is associated with those aspects of the Left that oppose Zionism", there would be no problem on this regard. If we leave the current wording in place, there is a rather serious problem.

Consider the following sentence:

"Mr. X opposed Tony Blair because of his duplicity in the buildup to the Iraq war."

In this instance, Mr. X may well believe that "Tony Blair was duplicitous in the buildup to the Iraq war". "Tony Blair's duplicity in the buildup to the Iraq war" may also be an accurate reflection of Mr. X's stated reason for opposing Tony Blair. Notwithstanding this, the sentence itself is emphatically not NPOV, as it elevates "Tony Blair's duplicity in the buildup to the Iraq war" to the level of fact rather than perception.

Let us now return to the matter at hand:

Proponents of the new anti-Semitism believe that the recent rise in anti-Semitism is associated with the Left and its opposition to Zionism and to the existence of the state of Israel as a Jewish homeland.

Proponents of the new anti-Semitism may well believe that "the Left opposes Zionism". "The Left and its opposition to Zionism" may also be an accurate reflection of proponents of the new anti-Semitism's stated rationale for explaining the recent rise in anti-Semitism. Nothwithstanding this, the sentence itself is emphatically not NPOV, as it elevates "the Left and its opposition to Zionism" to the level of fact rather than perception.

Therefore, the current wording is POV. It may also be invalidated by the identification of a Leftist group or entity that supports Zionism. Tikkun newspaper is such an entity.

If the past is any guide, my comments will be ignored and my interlocutors will either ask me to show sources (for a matter of logic!) or insist that I know nothing of the subject. Feel free to prove me wrong.

Cheers, CJCurrie 23:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

A clearer wording would be ... that the recent rise of anti-Semitism is associated with Left-wing opposition to Zionism.... Jayjg ^(talk) 23:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your clear and constructive reply, although I wish you could have delivered it before I mapped out the previous syllogism.

Your suggested wording ... actually isn't bad. I think "elements of the Left that oppose Zionism" is less ambiguous, but your wording has the advantage of being more concise. I could live with either.

Perhaps we could take this exchange as a model for more professional discourse in the future. CJCurrie 00:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Survey

It might be helpful to have a high-level summary of the various perspectives of the editors/observers on this page. I have honestly tried to ensure that the questions aren't loaded.

This isn't part of some genius plan. It's just an idea that might open up some way to break the deadlock. Cheers! TreveX^talk 12:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

This survey doesn't belong on this page. This page is for discussing how to improve the article, not for discussing our beliefs. In fact, our beliefs should ideally, not play a role. Please move this survey to your user space and link to it. —Viriditas | Talk 13:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that our beliefs shouldn't play a role. Okay, perhaps i didn't explain. When the survey says I believe, this should be taken to mean I believe that the various sources discussed on this talk page and available in the article support the view that...

What I am trying to do here is establish a point from which we can build consensus. This starting point is essential, as it would form the basis for a proper way to go forward, rather than going round in circles like we are at the moment. TreveX^talk 15:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Viriditas; this survey is pointless and may only serve to divide, not build consensus. Pecher ^Talk 15:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. Survey is divisive and irrelevant. Our opinions and beliefs are not Wikipedia's concern. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[SURVEY DELETED]

I'm not sure you lot understand what I was trying to achieve here. This wasn't about personal beliefs but what editors believed merited inclusion on the page!

There is a difference between our individual opinions (doctrinal beliefs say), on the one hand, and our opinions on what can be included in the article because it is sourced soundly and makes sense. For example, I may not personally believe that NAS is particularly valid concept, but I would agree that it should be included as it is a prominent view held by many people and is sourced.

Okay. has now been deleted. The idea was to get a clear sense of where we are currently and see where there may be consensus. By breaking the problem down we might have been able to tackle individual bits.

Can anyone else suggest an approach, mediation aside, that might break this deadlock? TreveX^talk 16:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's arbitration but that could result in all of us being tempbanned from the article as an interim measure. Homey 16:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I've made a request to the WP:Mediation Cabal (an unofficial body, seperate from official WP mediation) here. Please add evidence to the page. TreveX^talk 17:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Dershowitz, Foxman et al

Why are people trying to link this phenomenon specifically to Dershowitz and Foxman? They did not originate the term, nor are they the people who have written most extensively or vocally on it. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm won't presume to speak for Homey, but I believe that he was only using those authors as examples and that the premise of your question is flawed. CJCurrie 22:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The choice of examples was pointed and biased. In any event examples are not required, since there are so many. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

So ... you're no longer arguing that Homey tried to link the phenomenon specifically to Dershowitz and Foxman, but are arguing that he was wrong to list them as specific examples? Am I following you correctly? CJCurrie 23:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why Jayjg is throwing Dershowitz into this. What I had written was:

The term, which was coined in the early 1970s and used more recently in separate books by Abraham Foxman and Phyllis Chesler. (emphasis added)

The reason I linked the reemegence of the phrase to Foxman and Chesler was the fact that they both wrote best selling books using the term in their titles and that the term had previously *not* been in continuous usage regardless of Foster's 1974 book. Would you have preferred a more sinister motive? I'm afraid there isn't one (though I'm intrigued why you came to substitute Chesler with Dershowitz, perhaps this is an example of changing the facts to fit the smear?).

Jayjg, I've asked you several times now to prove your view that the term has been in constant use since 1974 and did not disappear after Foster's book and then re-emerge a quarter century later. You've failed to do this yet you insist the term is not a neologism and that I'm somehow committing some culmany by daring to suggest the term has only recently received relative wide usage. Homey 23:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Homey, you keep asking me to prove negatives. Instead, if you keep asserting novel theses (for example, that it disappeared and then re-appeared), it is you who must provide reliable sources supported your novel thesis, avoiding original research. Do you have any? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

You are enaging in a strawman argument. This is what I actually wrote: "The term, which was coined in the early 1970s and used more recently in separate books by Abraham Foxman and Phyllis Chesler."

What is this "novel thesis" you claim I am proposing? Please confine yourself to what I've actually written.Homey 02:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Chesler etc., it has been used in many books and articles. It has been used in book titles by Foster, Chesler, Foxman, Pierre-Andre Taquieff, Fiamma Nirenstein and Anne Milano Appel. The names of the many people who have written on this topic need not be cited, since they are numerous and varied. Regarding your novel thesis, you claim the term was used in 1974, then disappeared until 2000. You need some evidence for that claim. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, read what I actually wrote. I don't use the term "disappeared" or anything like it. Homey 04:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

You specifically asked me (above) to prove that the term "did not disappear after Foster's book and then re-emerge a quarter century later". Jayjg ^(talk) 04:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I could move the discussion forward by posing this question: what evidence is there that the term was in common usage from 1974 to 2000? CJCurrie 00:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Why would one need evidence for that? One only needs to provide evidence for claims. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I would put it to CJ and Homey to prove conclusively that it is not true that I am the greatest sentient being in the universe and omnipotent, omnipresent, and all-knowing. If they can not disprove this they should instantly drop every claim that I do not agree with.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The article as it is now written claims the term came into "general use" in the 1970s. There is no evidence of that. There is only evidence of the term being in a book title in 1974 and then of it reappearing more than two decades later. The article should fit the facts, not make assumptions about "general use" as is now being done.

I will ask you to prove a positive: Do you have any evidence that the term came into "general use" in the 1970s as is alleged in the opening of the article? General use would imply more than a lone book title. All the sources I can find say the term came into use either since 2001 or in the late 1990s/early 2000s. Do you have a source that says the term came into "general use" in the 1970s? I submit to you that it is the article's current "general use" in the 1970s claim that is "original research" since there is no source that makes that claim (and again, a singe book title from 1974 is not "general use") Homey 01:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

If that's the issue you have, the sentence can be changed to "the term was used as early as 1974". Jayjg ^(talk) 03:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

WOO HOO! That's compromise, people! :-) TreveX^talk 09:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

How about "The term was used as early as 1974 and has entered common usage in recent years to describe a wave of anti-Semitism that has escalated since the Second Intifada in 2000.the next year.":

Sources: ".Such displays have commonly been presented as manifestations of the "new anti-Semitism," generally dated back to September 2000, when the second Palestinian intifada began. Decidedly, this "new" anti-Semitism, which would deny selfdetermination to the Jews even as it celebrates this principle for other nationalities, is driven by the Left, and not the Right. Even so, it is far from new."[1]

"The recent wave of anti-Semitic expressions that started in the late 1990s and intensified with the beginning of the second intifada was soon labeled the “New Anti-Semitism.”"[2]

(Chesler's) central argument here is that a worldwide coalition of Islamic terrorists, misinformed university students, leftwing academics and other likeminded people has carried on a campaign, since 9/11, of demonizing Israel and Diaspora Jewry.[3]

'The events of September 11, the American campaign against terrorism and the Palestinian intifada against Israel have created a dangerous atmosphere in the Middle East and Europe, one that "gives anti-Semitism and hate and incitement a strength and power of seduction that it has never before had in history," the National Director of the Anti-Defamation League, Abraham H. Foxman, said in a major address last week on the state of worldwide anti-Semitism."[4]

"True, since the Palestinians' second intifada against Israel began in autumn 2000 and, more notably, since the uprising intensified this year, synagogues and other Jewish buildings have been attacked in Belgium, Britain and especially in France. A German rabbi, after two recent street assaults on Jews (by youngsters of Arab appearance), has advised his brethren in Germany not to display signs of their faith for fear of being beaten up. This week a synagogue in London was ransacked at night."[5]

"In France for example, which hosts six million Muslims and 600,000 Jews, the highest number of Muslims and Jews in any European country, anti-Semitic attacks have significantly increased since the second Intifada end of September 2000, thus confirming a relation."[6]

"As data collected by the Stephen Roth Institute at Tel Aviv University, and other research, makes clear, the rise in anti-Semitism in Europe coincided with the beginning of al-Aqsa intifada - and Israel's heavy-handed response - with most of these attacks limited to acts of vandalism on synagogues and cemeteries. As the institute also makes clear, the perpetrators of these attacks, like those who attacked rabbi Gigi, were largely disaffected Islamic youths, a group itself that is the victim of some of the worst race hate and discrimination in Europe."[7]

Homey 14:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be using an entirely different standard here than you have used elsewhere. You insisted on putting various caveats around Gable's statements because he did not specifically use the term "New anti-Semitism", yet here you use a whole series of sources which also do not use the specific phrase "New anti-Semitism", yet you've suddenly decided they are applicable. In any event, your sources indicate the intensification began in the 1990s. Also, please recall that this article is primarily about the phenomenon, not the term used for it. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe all the sources above use the term New Anti-Semitism either in the quotation cited or elsewhere in the material being sourced. Gable, on the other hand, never mentions the New Anti-Semitism - it is an assumption (ie original research) that he is not talking about traditional anti-Semitism. In any case it is clear from the sources above (even if you want to nitpick and remove a few) that what is being referred to by all sides when one is referring to the "New Anti-Semitism" is a phenomenon that has happened within the past five or six years. Do you concede that Jayjg? The only difference I can see is some pro-Israel writers prefer to date the phenomenon to 9/11 where others say it dates to the Second Intifada that began the year before. Homey 19:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you are again confusing the phenomenon with the term for it. The New anti-Semitism is an observable phenomenon that includes various actions/statements by both Muslim and Left-wing groups and individuals. This article discusses that phenomenon, so any sources which discuss 21st century Left-wing or Muslim anti-Semitism are obviously part of it. The fact that many on the left dispute that these actions should be described as "New anti-Semitism" is a separate point. One can certainly make the argument that routinely equating Israel with Nazi Germany and vilifying Israel as essentially the fundamental source of all evil in the world is not "New Anti-Semitism" but rather simply "legitimate criticism" (though it's difficult to understand how one would do so with a straight face). Nevertheless, no-one disputes that these things are happening. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting parallel

The left-wing asserts that the accusation of "New anti-Semitism" is used to stifle legitimate criticism of the actions of Zionists. The right-wing (neo-Nazis, white supremacists) etc. asserts that the accusation of "anti-Semitism" is used to stifle legitimate criticism of the actions of Jews, who they call "Zionists". Food for thought. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, this is precisely the sort of comment that we should be avoiding for the purposes of the present discussion. We're here to discuss the article, not whether or not left-wing anti-Zionism is inherently anti-Semitic. This discussion has already lapsed into incivility on more than one occasion; statements such as the above will not improve matters and will likely make matters worse. I'd be quite willing to debate your observations in a different forum, but this is not the place. Cheers, CJCurrie 00:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

When did he say that the left wing is inherantly anti-semitic? or even impoly it for that matter?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The right alleges that the charge of Islamophobia" is being raised to stifle criticism of Muslims, particularly of fundamentalist Muslims in the West and to silence charges that parts of western Europe are being "Islamicised". That too is an interesting parallel, is it not?Homey 01:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually I haven't heard that one.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

See the Islamophobia article under "criticism of the concept" (at least for all but the "Islamicised" part though I have heard that as well).Homey 02:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that all contributors agree not to pursue this tangent further. Tempers are frayed enough as it is. CJCurrie 01:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Resolving one particular dispute

I have argued on several occasions that "the Left and its opposition to Zionism" is inappropriate phrasing (see "On Another Matter", above, for a detailed explanation).

Jayjg has recently proposed that the current wording on the article page could by changed to "[...] that the recent rise of anti-Semitism is associated with Left-wing opposition to Zionism [...]". I have no fundamental objections to this wording, although I believe "elements of the Left that oppose Zionism" may be less ambigious.

I propose that we choose one of these two options as a replacement for the current wording. Either option is acceptable to me. What say others? CJCurrie 00:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I support Jay's phrasing, I do not think that the it is saying that all of the left wing opposes Zionism, just that that is where a lot of the opposition is coming from.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it yields this interpretation, which is why I'm willing to endorse it. CJCurrie 00:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I would go with "elements of the Left that oppose Zionism" but I'm not massively bothered either way. My main worry is that alternative perspectives should be represented properly (NAS as a "mutation" or not different from old AS etc.) TreveX^talk 09:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that phrasing would be somwhat ambiguous as it doesn't illustrate that NAS is really only associated with the left.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Moshe, if what you're saying is that NAS is only associated with the left, I don't quite agree. There are numerous perspectives on what NAS and the left theory is just one, even if it is arguably the most prominent. See, for example, Daniel Pipes' summary of some of the trends [8]. Some even deny it is anything new. Ariel Sharon said that "What we are facing in Europe is an anti-Semitism that has always existed and it really is not a new phenomenon." [9] Others, e.g. Jonathan Sacks, have described it as a "mutation". TreveX^talk 17:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I shouldn't have said only, but I still think that the general consensus is that what makes it new is that it is primarily associated with the left, which is a group that has traditionally been disassociated from AS.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Consensus amongst whom? I see a number of mainstream citings of the "new Anti-Semitism" that refer only to it being new because it is a) recent or because it is associated with Islamic fundamentalists in Europe without any mention of "the left'. We also have the "anti-Zionism is the new Anti-Semitism" crew but they are making a claim and it's far from being a majority view (though it's probably more accepted that "smoking is the new Anti-Semitism" or "hating Fox is the new anti-Semitism"). Homey 00:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes of course you're right only a few fringe wackos think that NAS is associated with the left, which is why every radical left wing organization from Dissident Voice to Counterpunch has to devote articles to arguing why the left wing isn't anti-semitic.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Historical usage

I've just conducted a search for the term "new anti-Semitism" on the Factiva search engine, covering the years between 1980 and 1990.

Total hits: 25

Many used the term in a general sense (ie. referring to contemporary manifestations of anti-Semitism, not a motivational shift). One article, a Globe and Mail news report from 30 March 1987, used the term in reference to violence against Arabs. (I could do a complete run-down, if anyone wants.) CJCurrie 05:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Just now when I did a search on google, I got the usual thousands of hits. All of the ones I looked at (up to page 5) all referred to the same thing. Everything from the Guardian, Jerusalme Post, to the usual anti-semetic hate sights refer either to a resurgence of anti-semetic incidents or to a conspiracy to make it look like there is. I didn't see one site that refered to islamophobia.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

You've missed my point: I'm talking about "historical", not "contemporary" usage. I know that the term NAS is common parlance these days -- my intent was to track its usage in the 1980s. CJCurrie 05:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

If you're only searching online articles, how would you expect to find articles of any kind on the internet before the late 1990s? --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 09:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I think Factiva has articles that have been digitized retroactively. But still I don't really think this gives the whole picture since I don't know how many of these articles they have put on the internet.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Factiva has numerous digitized articles going back to the 1970s. No-one's claiming it's comprehensive, but it still gives a good snapshot picture of the last thirty years.

With only 25 "hits" for NAS in the '80s, I think we can safely conclude that the term was not in common usage in this period. CJCurrie 00:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we can, but to what end? We certainly can't put any original research into the article, regardless of how convinced we are of its veracity. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

... which was not my point either. My intent was to provide evidence showing that the term has not been in continuous usage since the 1970s. I have no intention of putting this evidence (or even the claim) into the article; neither, however, should the article assert or suggest that the term has been in general usage since 1974. (Btw, I'm not certain that the statement "A Factiva search for "new anti-Semitism" between 1970 and 1980 yields 25 hits" would be inadmissable on OR grounds.) CJCurrie 01:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I've just had a look on JStor between 1980 and 1995. This threw up a handful of examples of the phrase NAS. An interesting one is "anti-Semitism: Its changing meaning" by Allan Brownfield in Journal of Palestine Studies in 1987. This talks about Arnold Forster and Benjamin Epstein, as well as more topical (for then) discussions on accusations of anti-Semitism, pretty similar to the debate we've had here. TreveX^talk 10:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Usage and a suggested solution

Most of the sources I'm seeing simply talk of the New Anti-Semitism as the recent wave, perhaps associated with Muslim populations in Europe. The theory that the New Anti-Semitism is attached to the left seems to be a subtheory propounded by a smaller group of writers (who may, or may not have an agenda to stigmatize the left and neutralise criticism of Israel). I think, perhaps, we would be best to in the introduction refer to NAS as being a recent wave of anti-Semitic violence originating around the time of the Second Intifada and taking the form of attacks on synagogues and other anti-Semtic attacks by Islamic fundamentalist youth in Europe etc and confine the theory attaching it to the left to a section in the body of the article when discussion possible causes. While there are a few who have the "New Anti-Semitism is the result of left wing anti-Zionism" theory it doesn't seem to have followed the term itself into "general usage" and so we shouldn't treat it as either a fact or an innate aspect of the concept. Homey 15:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

What I am suggesting is that in the opening, we confine ourselves to discussing the term in reference to the recent wave of anti-Semitic incidents (particularly in Europe). We discuss various theories for why this new wave has occured under a section titled "Causes" or something along those lines. By doing this, we are not raising doubts about whether there is a new wave of anti-Semtisim but limit discussion of contestability to a section on why this wave is occuring. I think this might address some concerns that we might in some way be denying anti-Semitism or the degree to which anti-Semtic attacks are occuring. Also, by doing this, we better reflect the "consensus" in the literature regarding New Anti-Semitism, ie there is a consensus that there is a new wave of anti-Semitic attacks, particularaly in Europe and there is a consensus that the term "New Anti-Semtism" has been used to describe this wave. There is no consensus as to the underpinning cause(s) of this wave.Homey 16:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Homey, you seem bound and determined to divorce the phenomenon of New anti-Semitism from the Left, by whatever means possible, even if it means (as in this case) artificially attributing it solely to Muslim fundamentalist youth. However, the literature on the topic makes no such distinction; on the contrary, it is quite clear that one of the fundamental reasons that the New anti-Semitism is New is because it originates from the Left, as opposed to classical anti-Semitism, which typically originated from the Right. Anti-Semitism from Muslim fundamentalists is hardly new; sadly, there is a 1500 year history of it. On the other hand, anti-Semitism from the Left is quite new. I understand that being associated with anti-Semitism is quite upsetting for those on the Left, but one cannot distort the entire definition of the phenomenon merely to avoid disturbing their sensibilities. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Wherever the theory of the left and NAS is discussed, I think that it would be fair to discuss the muslim angle alongside it. This isn't to try and minimise the association of the left with NAS, as it is obviously an idea which is put forward repeatedly in the literature. But the idea of a resurgence of muslim anti-semitism is also prominent enough to merit inclusion:

In the course of the rise in antisemitic incidents over the last few years, there has been a shift in public perception of the 'typical' antisemitic offender from an 'extreme right' skinhead to a disaffected young muslim.[10]

Christians developed the abiding tropes of anti-Semitism (such as greediness and ambitions to world domination) and historically Christians killed most Jews. Therefore, Jews regularly fled Christendom for Islamdom. In 1945, this pattern abruptly changed. Christians newly came to terms with Jews, while Muslims adopted both the old Christian themes and murderousness. Today, institutional anti-Semitism is overwhelmingly a Muslim affair. One result has been the steady reverse exodus, with Jews now fleeing Islamdom for Christendom.[11]

I know the timeframes (post 9/11 and post 1945) are different for the above two quotes, but I believe the second one qualifies what Jayig says about 1500 years of discrimination and the relative levels over this period. Perhaps we could say something along these lines "The NAS refers to types [note plural] of anti-semitism which differ from [the old right-wing anti-semitism]." We could then go on to detail the types: left wing, muslim etc... TreveX^talk 17:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

That's about the size of it; it's a combination of things, including Left-wing and Muslim anti-Semitism. None of them can be left out. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

":Homey, you seem bound and determined to divorce the phenomenon of New anti-Semitism from the Left"

My determination is to avoid having a POV subjective theory referred to as if it's an NPOV fact (this should be your concern as well) and to proceed where there is a consensus in the literature rather than with contentious views. As CJCurrie has pointed out there are numerous references to the "New Anti-Semitism" that make no reference to the left or to criticism of Israel. You, on the other hand, seem determined to have this article written as if it were a polemic pushing a particular POV as if it is a majority or consesnsus viewpoint. Homey 19:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The phenomenon is as factual and well-established as classic Anti-Semitism; it is just that the Left objects to it being described as "New anti-Semitism", just as the Right (and often Muslim groups) object to classic Anti-Semitism being described as "Anti-Semitism". The article itself describes the phenomenon using many different sources, and also provides the viewpoints of those who object to the term used to describe it. It could hardly be more NPOV. And I am not aware of any sources discussing this phenomenon which "make no reference to the left or to criticism of Israel"; CJCurrie seems to have found a small number of references referring to something else, but please don't forget, even though "Pink is the new Black", that doesn't mean Pink and Black are the same thing. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Are y'all ready for an unprotect? · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 21:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

We seem to have made a bit of progress though a number of areas are still in play. Let's try unprotecting it and let's see if we can avoid reversions and try to actually build on each other's contributions. Homey 21:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I may be behind the discussion, but I didn't notice any consensus upon last reading. Pecher ^Talk 21:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Pecher; I don't see very much consensus except on smaller points, and I suspect any unprotection would immediately result in the resumption of attempts to do a POV re-write of a longstanding version. If Homey would promise to get consensus for changes on Talk: first, then I'd be agreeable, but I don't see any indication yet that he's willing to do that. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

"If Homey would promise to get consensus for changes on Talk: first, then I'd be agreeable,"

I'd be willing if you're willing to remove existing language for which there is no consensus. If you're not willing to do this and you think the situation requires further protection are you now willing to agree to mediation?Homey 22:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

All the language currently in the article was achieved through consensus. If you'd like to change that, you'll need to achieve a new consensus. The fact that you have suddenly started editing this article does not mean that there was no longstanding consensus that preceded your edits, and insisting that anything you now disagree with must be removed before you will agree to stop edit-warring is the opposite of the consensus building process. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[adopts voice of chef from south park] "Now, children!" Seriously. Stop bitching at each other. It isn't big, it isn't clever and it's not going to help us. I know I've been guilty of it too at points. But it's not going to improve the article.

I think that Homey should accept that the left idea is prominent in the new discourse, especially that coming out of America since 9/11. However, this is different from it being wrong, which as a personal opinion (irrelevant to the article etc.), I believe it is. Perhaps Homey should concentrate on developing a wording which properly expresses the opposition to the validity of NAS to attack the left and anti-Zionism? TreveX^talk 22:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let's give it a try. Homey 22:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's try to develop a new wording, and let's not unprotect until that is done. I still see no consensus, nor any agreement to respect the longstanding version until a new consensus is achieved. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

See my post at the bottom of this page. I actually have no problem with the current wording except for the need to alter the unverified suggesting that the term came into "general use" in the 1970s and the need to reflect the consensus in the literature that the "new anti-Semitism" has arisen since the turn of the century in the wake of a) the beginning of the Second Intifada b) 9/11 and the war on terror. (I haven't seen anyone disagree with this suggestion). I also think it's necessary to discuss Islamic fundamentalism among disaffected and alienated western European Muslims as a factor (again, I haven't seen you or anyone else disagree with this).

So, having made the initial request for protection, I think it's now possible to proceed without it. Homey 00:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

New anti-Semitism and Muslims

There was an interesting point raised above in the discussion, namely that Muslims play an active role in the recent wave of anti-Semitism. Muslim anti-Semitism nowadays is also "new" in the sense that it is different from the traditional Muslim anti-Semitism. Over ages, Muslims treated Jews with enormous contempt; however, recently, in a large part due to the influence of Western anti-Semitism rooted in Christianity, Muslim anti-Semitism has changed to the one of demonization and here it shares company with the new left-wing anti-Semitism. Bernard Lewis, for example, makes this point: "The main negative quality attributed to Jews in Turkish and Arab folklore was that they were cowardly and unmilitary—very contemptible qualities in a martial society... that may help us to understand the bewilderment and horror at the Israeli victories in 1948 and after... The Western form of anti-Semitism — the cosmic, satanic version of Jew hatred — provided solace to wounded feelings. The growth of European-style anti-Semitism in the Arab world derived in the main from this feeling of humiliation and the need therefore to ascribe to the Jews a role very different from their traditional role in Arab folklore and much closer to that of the anti-Semitic prototypes... By now the familiar themes of European anti-Semitism—the blood libel, the protocols of Zion, the international Jewish conspiracy, and the rest—have become standard fare in much of the Arab world, in the schoolroom, the pulpit, the media, and even on the Internet."[12] Lewis's article is titled "The New Anti-Semitism", so it should be without question that Lewis sees the new kind of Muslim anti-Semitism as indeed a part of the New Anti-Semitism. Pecher ^Talk 21:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know all the writers who discuss this phenomenon include the Muslim strain of it. I don't think anyone is suggesting we ignore that and focus exclusively on the Left-wing strain. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

That's true, but it appears that this aspect of the New anti-Semitism receives virtually no treatment in "The nature of the new anti-Semitism" and in the intro. Pecher ^Talk 17:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

1902 - new anti-semitism

from OED 2nd ed pub 2002 in their entry on pseduoscience they cite: "1902 Encycl. Brit. XXV. 472/1 This was the pseudo-scientific note of the new anti-Semitism, the theory which differentiated it from the old religious Jew-hatred." Mccready 08:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Mccready, here's a policy you may not be aware of: Wikipedia:Harassment. In part, it forbids "Following an editor to another article to continue disruption (also known as wikistalking)", and states "The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor." You have taken your conflict with SlimVirgin at Animal Rights and expanded it to the Lauren Slater article, in which you showed absolutely no interest until SlimVirgin began editing there. You have now wikistalked her to this article, and to the WP:RFPP section regarding this article. Please desist, as this policy is taken quite seriously. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Mccready may or may not be Wiki-stalking, but I suspect that his contribution (if accurate) is useful to a history of the term. CJCurrie 19:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It might be somewhat useful in an article about various uses of the phrase "New anti-Semitism". This, however, is an article about the phenomenon, and only peripherally discusses the terminology, so its usefulness seems limited. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The racial or "scientific" (sic) anti-Semitism that the Nazis adopted was definitely a new type of anti-Semitism compared to the traditional religious based variety (since one could escape the older form by converting to Christianity while there was no way of escaping the newer racial form). I don't know if it was ever referred to as the "new anti-Semitism" in its time but I wouldn't be suprised if it was. Homey 20:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Nowadays some people attempt to characterize the difference as "Anti-Semitism" vs. "Anti-Judaism". Others describe it as "Racial" vs. "Religious" anti-Semitism. Others see the distinction as specious. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Wading in

In looking through all this, it seems to me that all involved agree that the term in question is controversial and disputed. That's good news.

Now, to parse the disagreement a bit, let me posit that there is disagreement about

• What is antisemitism? Is it limited to acts of violence, vandalism, and threats of these? Or does it also include speech that is derogatory toward Jews? And does it include speech that deliberately or not promotes animosity toward Jews?
• What is "new" about it? Does it encompass action and speech from Moslem quarters, or does it also include the same from the political left, and for that matter the political right?

There is no question that those who allege new antisemitism a) include acts and speech in what they consider antisemitism; b) definitely include speech that indirectly hurts Jews; and c) include any and all regardless of their pretext or motivation.

Now, part of the controversy may be that this is too broad, or that it isn't new. But it would be false to pretend that those who warn about new antisemitism maintain a narrow scope of what it's about. --Leifern 21:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The controversy in the literature over New Anti-Semitism is whether or not legitimate criticism of a state (and by legitimate I don't necessarily mean criticism that everyone agrees) is included in the definition and is, ipso facto, anti-Semitism. IE is one an anti-Semite because one opposes the state of Israel? The controversy in this article is whether it should state as a given that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitic or whether this should be treated as a contentious POV. Homey 21:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

For starters, nobody says that mere criticism of Israel's policies is antisemitism. Nobody. There are people who put those words in the mouths of those who talk of antisemitism, but that's another matter.

Having said that, it isn't our job to resolve the controversy; our job is to describe it. Those who talk of new antisemitism assert that opposing the existence of the state of Israel amounts to antisemitism, and that's what we have to make clear - that such is the allegation.

Hardly anybody will admit to being a bigot these days, and so the allegations of new antisemitism will never rely on anyone admitting to hating Jews; just as you'll rarely find people who admit to being prejudiced against, say, Catholics. --Leifern 22:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Homey, that's not exactly the controversy. The controversy is more about whether or not specific kinds of "criticism" of Israel or "Zionists" are, in fact, "legitimate criticisms", or are something else entirely. Similar to the controversy over the classic anti-Semitism; should "legitimate criticism" of Jews and the "Jewish race" be considered "anti-Semitism" or not? Neo-Nazis, Holocaust Deniers, etc. say it should not be considered "anti-Semitism" because it is just "legitimate criticism", regardless of whether or not everyone agrees. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Homey's description of the controversy is not what the controversy on this page is, or was when I last checked. It was that Homey was trying to remove that the new anti-Semitism is closely associated with the left, when that is what most of the literature (all of it that I have seen) states. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

What I was trying to do initially was to rewrite the introduction so that it did not imply a causal link between the left (or anti-Zionism) and anti-Semitism. Subsequently, after CJCurrie pointed out that many references to the New Anti-Semitism made no mention of the left I suggested removing such reference from the intro and having a section on "causes" in the body of the article.

As I explained earlier "associated" is a weasel word in this context suggesting that the there is a causal link rather than that causation is a theory. If there is no agreement that the intro should confine itself to discussing the "New anti-Semitism" in the sense of the recent escalation of anti-Semitic acts since 2000 and have a discussion of theories around causes left to the body of the article can we at least find a better term than "associated", one that describes the "link" as an accusation rather than one that implies a point of fact. I think the intro is passing off POV as fact and that's a problem.Homey 22:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by a "causal link." No one has suggested that, and I can't imagine what it might be (the left causes anti-Semitism; anti-Semitism causes the left?). The literature does imply a close association, and as CJC and you haven't read the literature, I'm wondering how you can know what it says. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

CJCurrie has pointed out no such thing, and all the sources discussing this phenomenon note that one of the things that make it New is the fact that it comes from the Left, not the Right. There's no point in trying to hide or obfuscate what is, in fact, a fundamental feature of this phenomenon. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

"I don't know what you mean by a "causal link." No one has suggested that"

Saying that the New Anti Semitism is "associated with" the left or is "associated with" anti-Zionism suggests causation (ie that the left produces (new) anti-Semitism). While it may be a theory of some writers that anti-Zionism "is the new Anti-Semitism" or that anti-Zionism or criticism of Israel by the left is or causes anti-Semitism it is not a fact. Similarly, some may have theorised (particularly in the 19th century) that Masons were behind all sorts of nefarious things from the French Revoution to the assassination of Lincoln but we would not say in an article that "Masons are associated with the assassination on Lincoln" because that suggests that they killed Lincoln when, in fact, the "association" is the product of conspiracy theorists, rather than the Masons. Homey 22:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no implication of causation with the word "associated" as it was used in that sentence, and no one anywhere at any point says the left is directly "causing" anti-Semitism. They are saying that elements of the left are anti-Semitic, although of course their embrace of it does cause it to spread further. The new anti-Semitism originates with and emanates from the left: as Jayjg says, this is a fundamental feature of the phenomenon, according to all the sources I have read who have studied it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, to be precise I don't think that anyone says that left-wing ideology is inherently antisemitic; but rather that anti-Zionist, or anti-Israeli sentiments are sometimes or even often used as a pretext for underlying antisemitism. And even if those who are vehemently anti-Israeli aren't antisemitic, their unreasonably harsh rhetoric will - even if it's unintentional - promote antisemitism. As to what causes antisemitism, that's a bigger question. But Homey, what seems to be confusing to you is the idea you seem to have that a statement you believe is false should not be in Wikipedia. The article in its various forms has taken great care to make it clear that new antisemitism is a (well-substantiated but controversial) charge, not a fact that serves as a premise. Leifern

"There is no implication of causation with the word "associated" as it was used in that sentence"

So there's no problem saying the Masons are associated with Lincoln's assassination?

"The new anti-Semitism originates with and emanates from the left: "

That statement presupposes that there is a "New Anti-Semism" of the type you describe. It also suggests the left is responsible for the firebombing of synagogues in France and other examples of the "new anti-Semitism" we've seen since 2000. Homey 00:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

" I don't think that anyone says that left-wing ideology is inherently antisemitic; but rather that anti-Zionist, or anti-Israeli sentiments are sometimes or even often used as a pretext for underlying antisemitism."

Then how do you explain the statement "anti-Zionism *is* the new anti-Semitism" by Chesler et al whose definition, it seems, SV et al want this article to adopt. That is somewhat more absolute than "sometimes or even often" Homey 00:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry Homey but your arguments are getting kinda out there. There is no real evidence that Masons had anything to do with Lincolns assasination it is just a conspiacy theory, however there is ample evidence that some people who are considered Leftist are anti-semitic, and since leftists have not traditionally been associated with anti-semitism, it is called New anti-semitism, your opposition has crossed the line into irrationality it seems.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

"The article in its various forms has taken great care to make it clear that new antisemitism is a (well-substantiated but controversial) charge"

That "great care" has not always been in evidence in the introduction. What is there at present is a definite improvement over what was there last week[13] (particularly the insertion of the word "believe" which modifies the phrase "is associated"). In any case, I have no problem with the introduction as it stands at present' save the unproven and OR suggestion that the term came into "general use" in the 1970s ( Jayjg has already suggested a change that would fix this problem) and the need to reflect the consensus in the literature on NAS refering to the escalaltion of anti-Semitic incidents since 2000/2001 (ie the Second Intifada, 9/11 and the resulting "war on terror". I think some consideration should also be given to the relationship between disaffected, alienated Muslims in Europe moving towards extremism and anti-Semitic outburstsHomey 00:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Reading the sources

as CJC and you haven't read the literature, I'm wondering how you can know what it says

I finished reading the 1974 book "The New Anti-Semitism" earlier today. The work was more-or-less what I've come to expect from the ADL: some valid and provocative research, and some rather more dubious assertions. I thought the seriousness of the entire venture may have been compromised when the authors criticized Woody Allen's films as perpetuating Jewish stereotypes, and hence as contributing to anti-Semitic thought in the US.

I was also troubled by the borderline anti-Arab racism in much of the book: one chapter was called "Arabs and pro-Arabs", and much of the book's rhetoric is directed against "Arabs" (as opposed to "Arab anti-Semites" or "Arab opponents of Israel"). I don't think that a respectable book published today would include such references; I hope not, anyway.

For our present purposes, though, the book is most notable for how it defines the NAS.

The New Anti-Semitism defines "new anti-Semitism" as (i) new in the sense of being contemporary, and also (ii) new in the sense of being qualitatively different from what came before -- not exclusively one or the other.

It describes the nAS as combining "old" racial/religious motivations and modern anti-Zionist outlooks. Most notably, it does not identify the term exclusively -- or even primarily -- with the left. Much of the book focuses on figures such as Gerald L.K. Smith (yeah, the same one) and right-wing black nationalists; there's even a chapter describing recent permutations in the radical right, arguing that it became more openly anti-Semitic in the 1970s. There are also some passages against the Communist Party and the Socialist Workers Party and some information on anti-Semitism in the Arab world, but the book emphatically does not focus solely on these themes.

In other words, it does not use the term NAS in the sense of its present usage, and its relevance to the present debate can probably be considered marginal at best. CJCurrie 04:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi All

Hi all, I just saw this dispute on the mediation page. I'm not a mediator but is there a specific point that users are in dispute about? Maybe I can help reach consensus on that? --Zleitzen 04:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Intro

I'm wondering if it might be more accurate to add the word "variously" below (added for illustration):

Proponents of the new anti-Semitism argue that it is associated variously with the Left,

anti-Americanism, opposition to Zionism and the existence of the state of Israel as a Jewish homeland, the anti-globalization movement, Islamism, and what Professor Todd Endelman of the University of Michigan has called "Third Worldism."

The reason is some of the sources I've read talk of anti-Zionism but not of the left. Do all the sources claim "the new anti-Semitism" is associated with all these things or do different sources say different things?

Also, it seems to me that the argument that anti-Zionism is associated with "the New anti-Semitism" is more consistently argued than the claim that "the left" is associated with it so shouldn't anti-Zionism be listed first? No, not all anti-Zionists are left wing, indeed, traditional Muslims and Islamic fundamentalists tend to be conservative on every other issue and are not part of "the left" per se even if leftists and they go to some of the same demos or even organize demos jointly. Some traditionalists may have formed an alliance with "the left" (for instance in the case of RESPECT in the UK) but that doesn't make them left wing. Homey 12:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

All the sources say it is associated with the left. Most of them then add the list above, but some emphasize one aspect more than the others, and some don't mention them all. But they all mention the left, because that's where it's coming from, so the word "variously" would be misleading. The only thing not associated with the left in the list is Islamism, and I really only added that because someone on the talk page wanted it. Some of the sources do mention Islamism or radicalized Islamic or Islamist youth, and some don't. Crucially, it's the Islamist-left alliance that tends to make Islamist anti-Semitism merge into the new anti-Semitism, but I have more reading to do before I can say much more than that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore even though Islamists might have found some common ground with different individuals and organizations, there is nothing novel about anti-semitism eminating from Islamic society.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Free free to remove Islamism if you feel it complicates the issue too much for the intro. I did hesitate before I added it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

No I think it is necessary to mention it since it is important to see how it relates to other anti-semitic elements.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Why did you remove the sourced statement describing the view of critics that NAS "and is an attempt by the Israeli government and its supporters to insulate Israeli policies towards the Palestinians from scrutiny" ? That is a sourced statement, it's only one sentence, and it helps balance out the lengthy segment regarding advocates. You also, in your reversion, de-dabbed Oslo accord and removed Israel and Zionism as a category.

Slim, is it really your contention that *every* source that says there is a new Anti-Semitism links it to the left? Think about it before you commit yourself to that position (and read a bit more widely). Homey 13:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Every source that I have read so far says that, yes. Some use the term "new anti-Semitism" and some "contemporary anti-Semitism," and some add the Islamism factor. I have found one who says that the right has become parasitical on it, though out of different motives. I'm in the middle of reading more widely, as you put it, but you might try the same thing. If you did, you'd see for yourself what the sources are saying, though I know that you know the intro is correct. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

"Variously" is misleading; please don't add it again. And how can it be an "attempt by the Israel government"? That's drivel. Homey, as many of the sources I've added are academics, could you find some higher quality sources too to support your edits. I think that would go a long way to solving the dispute. If you're going to rely on things like counterpunch, when we're quoting well-known professors of history, you should recognize the weakness of your position. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Slim, before getting into a pissing contest as to whether Tariq Ali is as "high quality" a source as , say, Phyllis Chesler I suggest you read their biographies. Ali has a noted reputation as a historian and intellectual. Chesler is not a "noted professor of history" but a psychologist who thinks India is an Arab country and that Aung San Suu Kyi is a Muslim intellectual. You might think Ali's comments are "drivel" but just because you disagree with them doesn't give you the justification to remove a reference to them from the introduction, particularly since the view articulated by Ali is indeed widely held by critics of NAS and is indeed central to their critique. It is not up to supporters of NAS to shape the critical analyses of their theory. Please do not remove the sentence which is sourced by the Ali article again. Homey 22:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about Chesler. I was thinking, for example, of Endelman and Bauer. Could you please produce a couple of academic sources to support your views? As for Ali, I've left the material in, as you wished, but I've named and quoted him so that readers can see who said it, where they said it, and what they said. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, that's much better. You might not have been thinking of Chesler or Foxman for that matter but they are cited early on in the intro nevertheless notwithstanding the fact that they lack academic credentials as historians, hence my response. Finklestein is an academic source, he's quoted in the body of the article but he could be cited in the intro as well if the critical side needs bolstering but I think the into looks pretty good right now as it is. If I have time I'll try to support my earlier claim that numerous sources see anti-Zionism (and others see Islamisim) as the central factor of NAS and either do not mention the left or give it less prominence but I'm not sure I have time to do that in the next few days... may have to leave that for later on unless another editor is able to do it in the mean time. Homey 12:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is Slim Virgin so interested in all of these controversial Jew-related topics? Oh, that's right, its because she is defending the Jewish faith. Except that her entire point of view, on all of the topics, opposes the wishes of Jewish people. Perhaps Slim Virgin is angry at something. Perhaps she is the embodiment of this article. (posted anonymously by User :203.122.195.111)

User:203.122.195.111, are you Herschelkrustofsky by any chance? I ask this since you've just posted something on HK's talk page in his name[14] If so, your reference to "Jew-related topics" undermines your claim that the LaRouche movement isn't anti-Semitic (though you get a half point for at least capitalizing the J). I've banned you for 48 hours for engaging in personal attacks. Inverted logic isn't a bannable offence, otherwise your prohibition would be for a longer period. Homey 12:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

It's banned User:Zordrac aka banned User:Internodeuser. His theory is that, because I ask for sources for the names on List of British Jews, I must be a member of Stormfront out to ensure that the list contains only "real Jews" so that when neo-Nazis decide to attack the people listed, they don't inadvertently attack someone who only has, say, a Jewish grandfather. Zordrac's inability to reason from A to B without spinning off into a thousand conspiracy theories is not unrelated to the banning of (so far) two of his accounts. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand, why would you actually suggest that his theory and reasoning is weird bullsh*t that L. Ron Hubbard would have difficulty dreaming up? After all we all know that there are stormfront secret agents on wikipedia that make sure only real jews get attacked.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Well Moshe, now you're going to have to explain exactly how you know that. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course now I'll have to kill you.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Please don't give the people on this talk page that satisfaction. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

"I don't understand, why would you actually suggest that his theory and reasoning is weird bullsh*t that L. Ron Hubbard would have difficulty dreaming up?"

Actually it's not L. Ron Hubbard but Lyndon LaRouche. Please try not to get your crackpot cult leaders confused - though they could be a Jeopardy! category "Crackpot cult leaders beginning with 'L'" for $500, Alex. Homey 12:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Neumann claim

There is a claim in the paragraph on Neumann: " He believes it is important to separate the Israeli government from the Israeli people and the Jewish Israelis from Jews as a whole, since Israel does not represent all Jews and the Israeli government does not represent the views of all Israelis. Thus criticism of the Israeli government and its actions is never the same as criticizing all Jews or even simply all Israelis." Can anyone provide a citation for this? I'd agree this is a common viewpoint but AFAIK he actually takes the opposite position.

For example the following paragraph from (Criticism of Israel is not Anti-Semitism):

Well, it might be anti-Semitic to hold Jews responsible for everything, but it would be bizarre to claim anti-Semitism whenever Jews are held responsible for anything. In a survey conducted by Steven M. Cohen of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 87% of American Jews said that Jews "have a responsibility to work on behalf of the poor, the oppressed and minority groups"; 92% said that Jews are obliged to help other Jews who are "needy or oppressed." What Foxman calls an anti-Semitic canard is deeply rooted in traditional and contemporary Jewish thought. A Web search will find dozens of rabbis attributing to Jews, generally, not just responsibilities but collective responsibility.

We hold groups responsible for things, good and bad, all the time: The Germans started World War II, the French opposed us in Iraq, the British supported us. The strongly pro-Israel columnist Jonathan Rosenblum states, "The Jews have built an advanced, industrial state, while the Palestinians have built nothing."

Clearly, it is not just anti-Semites who attribute responsibility to the Jews. And just as clearly, this is neither racist nor to be taken literally. Rosenblum does not mean that every last Jew, including children and the mentally disabled, built that state. He means that most adult Jews made some contribution to it.

Jbolden1517 20:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph you have provided takes a lot of stuff out of context and then mashes it together with other nonsensical claims.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Could you explain yourself here? I didn't provide any context, nor did I mash. This is a word for word quote of 3 short paragraphs in the article cited,

Anyway the burdon of evidence is on the other side here (that Neumann does believe in the separations listed); so I don't think its unreasonable to ask for a source. There is good evidence that Neumann supporters hold that view, but I see little evidence (and lots of contrary information) that he does. Jbolden1517 22:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying you specifically tok things out of context, but the author of the paragraph did. He takes various quotes of different people and uses them in a way that is almost irrational.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Now I understand what you are saying. The author of the paragraph you are talking about is Neumann (I thought that was clear). Basically the argument is not about truth but rather about what Neumann's position is. I'm arguing he has taken a position opposite of what the article asserts he has taken. So do you agree on the edit? Jbolden1517 19:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

where is cite the Neumann is Jewish? And Counterpunch is widely considered anti semitic and anti western. Incorrect 03:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you arguing:

a) He doesn't clam to be Jewish (ethnically)

b) His claims of being Jewish are false?

There are multiple citations of (a), and he looks it. I don't know of any Canadian genetics police that would have conducted an actually investigation. Jbolden1517 14:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

In this article Neumann says "in my name as a Jew", and it's apparently not disputed by anyone.

--Denis Diderot 07:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow, did you read the cite where he says he's a Jew - he also says that he would do anything, including telling any lie, including inducing anti semitism, to further the palestinian cause - talk about the basic self despising anti semitic jew, he's the exemplar!Incorrect 13:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

To get the full vileness of Neumann, the following is a quote from the above source regarding what he would do to help the Palestinian cause: "I would use anything, including lies, injustice and obfuscation, to do so. If an effective strategy means that some truths about the Jews don’t come to light, I don’t care. If an effective strategy means encouraging reasonable anti-Semitism or reasonable hostility to Jews, I don’t care. If it means encouraging vicious racist anti-Semitism, or the destruction of the State of Israel, I still don’t care.”Incorrect 13:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You do understand you are now indirectly quoting "Jewish Tribal Review" (an openly anti-semitic, canadian neonazi site) as a reliable source? Further you are actually misquoting the source and adding some of your own stuff. This guy is a "new antisemite" because he gets close to the line he would just be a normal anti semite if he actually said the things you are attributing to him. I'm sorry but I believe his rebuttal to Jewish Tribal Review and the CJC, regardless of whether you do or not I don't think we can use quotes from an email that he has denied writing as definitive evidence Jbolden1517 14:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Everyone agrees, of course, that "Jewish Tribal Review" is the exact opposite of a reliable source. But I think it deserves to be noted that Neumann did _not_ deny writing the emails as you claim. This is what he said: "since I refuse to read the material – will not even comment on its authenticity". This is a little dodgy, don't you think? Does he have to read the material on their web site to determine that he didn't write it?. He was provided with quotes. But this is, as you point out below, off topic. --Denis Diderot 21:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

As an aside. SlimVirgin, now can you see why a complex article with analysis is required? I do wish you had been willing to work with me and not just delete/revert. There are real controversies and "both points of view" should be represented. People don't have any clue about the real origins of these quotes. We have above a pro jewish activitist quoting neonazis (i.e. activist to a jewish lobbying group quoting NeoNazi quoting a private email whose contents the author has denied) as if this were a published source. It would be useful for everyone to have a simple source which lists the chain of claims. In the end the it may be the case that there is no way to do it outside of something like wikiinfo (where you can have analysis), but we never found out for sure. Jbolden1517 14:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

We are starting to get a little off topic here BTW. I'm still not seeing any citation. Does anyone have any citation in his online stuff or his books where he supports the separation the author mentioned in the main article (see top of subsection)? If not should I just delete/rephrase? Jbolden1517 18:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It is of course possible that Neumann has expressed such opinions somewhere else, but since the cited reference doesn't support the assertion, and his views appear to be pretty much the opposite (as you've pointed out), I think you should rephrase. Also I think Neumann expressed his views on anti-Semitism a bit more clearly in this article. Here are some quotes that provide the general drift of his argument: "So if it is not racist, and reasonable, to say that the Germans were complicit in crimes against humanity, then it is not racist, and reasonable, to say the same of the Jews. And should the notion of collective responsibility be discarded, it would still be reasonable to say that many, perhaps most adult Jewish individuals support a state that commits war crimes, because that's just true. So if saying these things is antisemitic, than it can be reasonable to be antisemitic." [In order to avoid the conclusion that anti-Semitism is reasonable, one must restrict the definition to] "clearly unjustified and serious hostility to Jews". [With this restricted definition] "not all 'hostility towards Jews', even if that means hostility towards the overwhelming majority of Jews, should count as antisemitic. Nor should all hostility towards Judaism, or Jewish culture." --Denis Diderot 21:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal

Hello, I've taken this case for mediation as requested by User:TreveX. While the Mediation Cabal is informal, and my suggestions would not be binding, as an uninvolved third party, I will endeavor to suggest a refactored introduction.

For the record, I will be examining the dispute based on the arguments presented on the talk page, and studying proposed cites in forming my recommendation. If you wish to comment, or provide additional evidence, please do so on the case page. Coren 03:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Disputed?

I'm fine with the current intro as well. Should the disputed notice be removed? CJCurrie 22:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

What??

This article says that relating the State of Israel's policies to that of Nazi Germany is anti-Semitic??!! Did I misread it?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.231.142.200 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, a little. The article says that the EUMC's definition of anti-Semitism asserts that; it says that Natan Sharansky asserts that; it says that Colin Powell implies it. Wikipedia articles do not take positions; they report positions -- and this article does that rather well. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • It is a bit bizarre since Israeli politics often has incidents of this or that party leader being accused of being like the Nazis, wanting to finish what Hitler started or being like Hitler etc. This goes back to the days of Ben Gurion calling Vladimir Jabotinsky as "Vladimir Hitler". Homey 11:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It depends on the context.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk-TINC 12:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course; if we call the PM a Nazi it's ok, if they do it, they're anti-Semitic. A perfectly clear double standard. Homey

I don't understand the need for the sarcasm, but I think you can understand that the same couple of words can have vastly different meanings depending on the tone and context.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk-TINC 12:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Ironic editing?

Jayjg has tried to truncate this quotation:

• ""cynical ploy on the part of the Israeli Government to seal off the Zionist state from any criticism of its regular and consistent brutality against the Palestinians."

to

• ""cynical ploy on the part of the Israeli Government to seal off the Zionist state from any criticism."[15]

Thus trying to remove from the introduction the actual criticsm Israel's critics are making, in a quotation about Israel trying to stifle criticism. I find this very ironic and, if I didn't know better, I'd think Jayjg was an anti-Zionist trying to prove Tariq Ali's point. I don't think removing nine words has any impact on making the intro less succinct - all it does is dull Ali's point and alter its meaning - Ali doesn't say Isreal is trying to protect itself from all crticism, just that concerning its policies towards Palestinians. Jayjg's edit has the effect of exaggerating and distorting Ali's comment as well as diffusing its focus on Isreal's Palestinian policy. Frankly, it strikes me that the only justification for removing those words is to "seall off the Zionist state from any criticism of its regular and consistent brutality against the Palestinians" (thus proving Ali's point) as well as to make Ali seem credible by making his criticism look overly broad. Please do not alter the quotation again. Homey 12:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I've restored Jayjg's version and will keep doing so because Wikipedia is not a soapbox, especially for anti-Israeli bigots. If you want to quote Tariq Ali's views on the Arab-Israeli conflict, choose another article; this one is on the New anti-Semitism, so let's keep to the record. Pecher ^Talk 13:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly as Pecher stated. This article is about the New anti-Semitism, not the Arab-Israeli conflict, and it's certainly not a soapbox for anti-Israel rhetoric. Your quote from him already makes him look radical and foolish enough, there's no point in compounding the error by letting him fulminate at even greater length, particularly when it is inappropriate for this article and especially for an introduction. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and regarding the "nine words", the quotation is already 18 words, and you wanted to make it 50% larger. There are no other quotes in the introduction that exceed 5 words, and even that one is from a critic of the concept. The introduction is not the place for lengthy quotations of any sort. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, I misread the edit history, it was CJCurrie who inserted the full quotation with the remark that there was no period where SlimVirgin placed it and that we shouldn't be using "half quotes". He is correct, truncating a sentence by implying that it ends where it does not is distortive editing. I see no reason for not including the full quotation, particularly as Pecher's "soapbox" comment makes it clear his concern is with the content of the quotation, not its length and Jayjg's statement of complete agreement with Pecher makes it clear that both their attempts to truncate the quotation is POV. Homey 22:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have misread the comments, which make it clear that the reason the latter parts were excluded have to do with it being too lengthy for an intro, not on the topic of the article, and inflammatory rhetoric to boot. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

alternative intro on the mediation page

I've added my version of the intro on the Mediation page. Raphael1 20:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

3RR

Homey, you've violated 3RR again. Please take the opportunity to revert yourself. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Photo caption

The photo caption, with quote critical of anti-semitism, was removed by SlimVirgin. The reason given was that it was POV.

May I add that the culture of repeat reversion that pervades on this page is very unconstructive. I hope that SlimVirgin would accept that my contribution was a genuine good-faith attempt to improve the article, rather than to insert spin or bias. If she disagrees with my edit then why not revise it instead of deleting it completely? TreveX^talk 12:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You're doing original research by adding your own opinion of what the image contains. Readers can look at it and decide for themselves. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you please explain which bits you consider to be my opinion? --

Photographed at a 16 February 2003 anti-war rally in San Francisco.

What are described as 'counterfeit jews' lean over the shoulder of 'capitalist white man', depicted as a devil wearing a swastika. [This is what it says on the image]

It has been claimed that new anti-semitism recycles old stereotypes of Jews as a "transnational mafia uniquely tuned to exploit capitalist economy and culture".[1]

TreveX^talk 13:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The latter two are your original research. Pecher ^Talk 13:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

COME ON!!! This is RIDICULOUS! The second thing: does it not say, on the photo "Conterfeit Jews" on a set of two people and "Capitalist white man" on another? This is a FACT - not original research. Look closely at the image -- these things are clearly there on the photo -- I'm not making this up!!!

The third thing is a quote from someone else, which is fully referenced. How can this be original research????? Please give me something to work with here, a compromise rather than taking an absolute view and deleting any contribution I make. TreveX^talk 13:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

But you only describd those two things, not any other, so you're being selective, and we can't describe everything about it. I didn't see any quote. I'll take another look. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

What did that quote have to do with the image? The quote would have to be about the image to be included, or at a stretch images like it (at least). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Why must we make up all sorts of descriptions and explanations for the image? The caption should merely state where and when it was taken. We don't need to write a novel about its meaning in our own opinions. The reader can view the image, and if there are various things "clearly there on the photo", then they will see them - we don't need to inject POV by trying to direct them specifically to them. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

If the caption below the first image is to be removed, should we not also remove the caption below the Latuff image? CJCurrie 22:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Response

The difficulty here is that HOTR and CJCurrie want to say that there is no such thing as "new anti-Semitism". They can find sources like Tariq Ali to support them — who is, as you put it very well, part of the debate, rather than a source who is simply speaking about the debate — but they can't find anyone serious to support them. The reason for that is that all the authoritative sources agree that it is a real phenomenon and also that it emanates from the left. I stand to be corrected, of course, and still hope that Homey or CJCurrie can find notable, scholarly sources from relevant fields, because then we could fashion a more intelligent article, which is above all what I would like to see. But the problem is that Homey and CJCurrie will claim that any scholar who states that new anti-Semitism is a real phenomenon, and that it stems from the left, is by definition part of the debate and representing one side only, no matter how eminent they are, because Homey and CJC will not shift from the view that the new anti-Semitism doesn't really exist, and that insofar as it might, it doesn't come from the left. We could drop them into an entire library full of books that show it does exist; they would simply dismiss them as evidence of how good Israel or Zionists are at propaganda. In other words, they're operating within a closed system of thought. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't devote too much time to this discussion today, but to make a few comments:

The difficulty here is that HOTR and CJCurrie want to say that there is no such thing as "new anti-Semitism".

One of the most frustrating aspects of this discussion from my vantage point has been SV's impugning of motive upon my edits. Even more frustrating is that she has generally impugned incorrect motives upon my edits.

She has suggested that I want to dismiss or belittle any source favourable to Israel (not true), and that I regard the ADL as an improper source for material to be used in the article (also not true). Now, she is asserting that I believe there is no such thing as NAS.

My response: I believe there has been a global increase in anti-Semitism since 2001. I believe some of this is associated with anti-Zionism and with the left, and that some of it emanates from other sources. I believe that some anti-Zionism is grounded in anti-Semitism, and that some anti-Zionism is not grounded in anti-Semitism. I believe that NAS is a problematic term, and that it has all-too-often been used for propagandistic purposes. This is not the same as saying "it doesn't exist"; it just means that we have to be careful in our definitions.

They can find sources like Tariq Ali to support them — who is, as you put it very well, part of the debate, rather than a source who is simply speaking about the debate — but they can't find anyone serious to support them.

Tariq Ali is an internationally respected scholar. Readers are free to disagree with his conclusions, but it's more than a bit distasteful to dismiss him out of hand.

I'll also note that Warren Kinsella is one of the authors cited in the "pro-usage of the term" section (and that the source material is a blog entry). Kinsella is notorious in Canadian politics for his polemical writing and selective quoting; he has done serious work about the Canadian far-right, but his credibility as a reliable source has unfortunately been undermined in other ways. (Readers may also note that he wrote favourably of Jewish Defence League leaders in his 1994 book Web of Hate. The Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith considers the JDL to be a terrorist organization. I agree with the Anti-Defamation League.) Statement withdrawn. Kinsella does not support the Jewish Defence League. 04:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Would anyone seriously suggest that Kinsella is not "part of the debate"?

The reason for that is that all the authoritative sources agree that it is a real phenomenon and also that it emanates from the left.

I've already cited a recent European Union report that cites incidents of anti-Semitism as emanating from various points on the political spectrum (some radical right, some radical left, some radical Islam). SV has not commented on this document.

Of course, it's possible that certain readers do not consider the EU report to address the "NAS" specifically. If the NAS is defined as referring exclusively to a new type of anti-Semitism, then it cannot be applied to all recent manifestations of anti-Semitism: it can only refer to certain incidents, premised in certain motivations. (There may be the danger of circular logic in this interpretation, but I'll save that argument for another day.)

For now I'll simply ask this question: of the sources cited in the article, which are authoritative and which are not?

But the problem is that Homey and CJCurrie will claim that any scholar who states that new anti-Semitism is a real phenomenon, and that it stems from the left, is by definition part of the debate and representing one side only, no matter how eminent they are, because Homey and CJC will not shift from the view that the new anti-Semitism doesn't really exist, and that insofar as it might, it doesn't come from the left. We could drop them into an entire library full of books that show it does exist; they would simply dismiss them as evidence of how good Israel or Zionists are at propaganda. In other words, they're operating within a closed system of thought.

I'm not going to bother responding to the above, except to note that it's premised in flawed assumptions and leads to an incorrect conclusion.

Perhaps SV could make it easier for all of us by identifying sources that are genuinely neutral, and "not part of the debate" -- I'd be quite happy to look these over, when I have the time.

I will add that SlimVirgin still owes me an apology for a separate statement made earlier in this discussion. CJCurrie 23:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Tariq Ali quote

This is Jayjg's edit:

Tariq Ali has written in Counterpunch that the campaign against the New anti-Semitism is a "cynical ploy" by the Israeli government to shield itself from criticism for its policies toward the Palestinians.

This is the actual quote:

The campaign against the supposed new 'anti-semitism' in Europe today is basicly a cynical ploy on the part of the Israeli Government to seal off the Zionist state from any criticism of its regular and consistent brutality against the Palestinians.

Leaving out the word "supposed" grossly distorts the meaning of Ali's comments, and makes him appear to be something that he is not. I can't adjust the edit myself at present; perhaps I could suggest that Jayjg adjust his own edit in some provisional manner so as not to leave a false impression.

(I'm quite serious that the David Clark section is appropriate for the article, btw. The article was published in a quality journal, and your argument that he "isn't well known" is entirely beside the point.) CJCurrie 23:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

He isn't known at all. We don't know who he is, what his background is, whether he has any expertise in this area. You need to find a respected scholarly source, or else stick with one quote. The other side cites two professors but we don't include long quotes from them. I'd be astonished if you could find two professors in a relevant field who agreed with you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You need to find a respected scholarly source, or else stick with one quote.

May I suggest discarding the Ali quote in favour of the Clark quote, in that case? CJCurrie 00:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I will also reiterate my request that someone change the Ali quote, as the most recent edit is a gross distortion. CJCurrie 00:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

a former adviser to Robin Cook LOL!! It gets better and better

Care to elaborate? CJCurrie 00:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

He isn't known at all.

How many people in the US or Britain know who Warren Kinsella is? (Former advisor to the Canadian government of Jean Chretien cited as an expert in the opening). Clark is a UK political analyst and regular contributor to the Guardian, I suspect that means he's signficiantly better known that Kinsella.Homey 02:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Warren Kinsella? Author of several books (including two quite relevant to the topic), "newspaper and magazine columnist and op-ed writer; he is currently media columnist for the National Post", who has his own Wikipedia article, and someone who gets almost 268,000 Google hits? Are you seriously comparing him to David Clark, who has apparently written a grand total of 3 articles for the "commentisfree" section of The Guardian? [16] Jayjg ^(talk) 14:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

You need to find a respected scholarly source, or else stick with one quote.

Is Chesler a "respected, scholarly source"? I think calling India an Arab country and referring to Aung Sun Suu Kyi as a "Muslim intellectual" disqualifies her on both counts, Psychology PhD notwithstanding. True, she has appeared on Fox News (which, I gather, makes one more eminent than, say, being a former advisor to a British Foreign Secretary). Is Abe Foxman a "respected, scholarly source"? Homey 02:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Actual Tariq Ali's quote suggests that he is talking about the "campaign" against the New anti-Semitism, not about the New anti-Semitism itself, so it deos not look like he disputes the existence of the New anti-Semitism or the validity of the concept of New anti-Semitism. This is yet another reason not to have him in the article, let alone in the intro. Pecher ^Talk 09:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

So why do you think he put the word "supposed" in front of it? Palmiro | Talk 14:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Pecher. Stop removing the Tariq Ali quote/paraphrase. Homey 02:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The intro

I suggest that the intro be shrunk. Why do we need to go into argumentation about it above the fold? It looks crappy (all those footnotes!), and it doesn't really add anything concrete to the reader's comprehension of the material; it's not sufficiently in-depth to actually impart any useful information, so the reader still needs to dig deeper into the article to get a good sense of the controversy. I propose that the the paragraphs starting "Proponents" and "opponents" be eliminated; perhaps they might be replaced with a single sentence mentioning the existance and intensity of the controversy; examples belong in the main text. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. --Denis Diderot 10:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Suggested new introduction

I have posted a suggested first draft for the introduction (along with a rationale for it) on the case page. Please read it over and comment there. Coren 00:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• why are you putting these comments at the top of the talk page, where they'll generally be missed? Or is that some peculiarity of the MC method? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strictly for aestetic reasons. I don't like to clutter active discussions with large, beige tags. I think that's disruptive to proper flow. But you are correct that this section should have gone to the bottom. Brain failiure. Down it went! Coren 03:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems the proposed mediator, who keeps spamming this page with a tag telling people not to archive or refactor, has made 33 edits to articles. [17] I'm hoping I've made a mistake, but as things stand, that's what it looks like. I'm assuming that none of the experienced editors here want a mediator who's hardly edited. If mediation is needed, I will only take part if the mediation committee is involved. But I don't think it is needed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Or we informally find an experienced editor who's very familiar with the policies that we can all agree to trust. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Personally speaking, I find it disapointing that you have decided to judge the merit of my attempts to mediate by a dubious metric on an account, yet have not so much has commented on the substance of my observations or suggestions. Coren 04:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The metric I use is "How much success has the person had in effectively editing complex articles, in mediating heated Wikipedia situation, and how familiar is the editor with Wikipedia's complex policies and guidelines". By that highly relevant and objective metric, you seem completely inappropriate for the task. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Given that one of the editors named as a party is actively opposed to attempts at informal mediation, I will recuse myself from this case. My suggested introduction, of course, stands and may be used as desired. Best of luck to all, and please remember that we are all trying to build and encyclopedia. Coren 04:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

This is nothing to do with the amount of edits Coren has made and everything to do with the fact that SlimVirgin doesn't like the look of Coren's first draft. TreveX^talk 12:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. Aside from your comment being an egregious and unwarranted violation of WP:AGF, it is also ignores a fundamental and critical issue; how could someone who has barely edited Wikipedia possibly effectively mediate a complex issue like this? User:Coren effectively began editing Wikipedia 10 days ago! Do you honestly imagine that he/she is familiar enough with how Wikipedia works, its purpose, ethos, etc., and in particular the many and complex Wikipedia policies and guidelines, to effectively mediate a conflict like this? Does User:Coren have any experience in editing controversial Wikipedia articles, or in mediating Wikipedia content disputes? Please evaluate this question seriously. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, for anyone on this page (including me) to lecture anyone else about WP:AGF is rank hypocrisy. I understand your concerns but I think that any Wikipedia contributors, including mediators, should be judged on the merits of their work. Volunteer mediators aren't crawling out of the woodwork you know. So, as SlimVirgin has unilaterally brought the mediation to an end, would she have any constructive suggestions as to how we might proceed? TreveX^talk 14:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

We can hardly "judge" User:Coren on the "merit of his work", can we? Because, of course, he just started regularly editing Wikipedia a few days ago. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

TreveX, I didn't even read Coren's first draft. He is someone who either has no experience of Wikipedia or it's a sockpuppet account. And I didn't bring anything to an end unilaterally. It was you who tried to impose it unilaterally. The next time you're looking for mediation, I suggest you try the mediation committee, where they vet people who act on their behalf and have a proper procedure.

I can almost certainly find an experienced editor willing to mediate informally, if one is needed, but I'm not convinced there is a need. What are the outstanding issues? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The Tariq Ali quotation, for one. Homey 02:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Stating the problem, hoping for answers

As I see it, there are basically two problems that makes this article so difficult to write and maintain.

(1) There are a variety of different meanings attached to the term.

(1a) The term "new anti-Semitism" is not a well-defined scientific term. 
(1b) It's not a registered trademark either.
(1c) It doesn't have an immediate tangible denotation like "Apple", "Bear", "Grand Central Terminal" or "Paris".
(Paris tangible? Not really, but you can at least touch it on a photo)
(1d) The term  consists of a fairly common word prepended by a very common word.
(1e) The word "new" is in itself ambiguous. 
It may mean completely new 
("Never before, any time, anywhere , any place has there been anything like this").
Or it may be taken in some more limited sense. 
("We've moved to a new place". The place may in fact be quite old.)
(1f) Some make a very clear distinction between criticism of Israel or "Zionism" (whatever that means) and anti-Semitism.
 Others see any unreasonable, unbalanced or diproportionate  criticism of Israel as evidence of anti-Semitism.  

(2) It's a very controversial topic. Let me just mention the following sub-topics involved. Each controversial in itself. The list is not meant to be complete. Just a few examples.

(2a) Left-right politics
(2b) Anti-Semitism
(2c) Racism in general
(2d) Globalization
(2e) The Israeli-Palestinian conflict
(2f-z)...

So how do we deal with difficulties like this ? What is the right Wikipedia way? I'm asking primarily the most experienced editors.

--Denis Diderot 10:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

You have listed the difficulties with the concept of the New anti-Semitism that you have. Usually, the Wikipedia way is not to address concerns of individual editors unless the opinions of such editors reflect a certain notable view. For example, someone may be concerned about the general theory of relativity because he or she may think that it doesn't have an immediate tangible denotation or that it's not a registered trademark, or that the term consists of three fairly common words. Such opinions will have no bearing on the article unless physicists share these concerns. If you find my example flawed because general theory of relativity is a well-defined scientific concept, then so is the New anti-Semitism, no matter how long you pretend that the concept of the New anti-Semitism is murky or ill-defined, because a plethora of sources that has been supplied says that it is a common and well-defined concept. In addition, Monsieur Diderot, if you wish to talk just to a selected group of editors, while ignoring everybody else, you should use talk pages of these editors rather than post your comments on the article's talk page. Pecher ^Talk 11:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Someone comes on here with something constructive to say only to be slapped down. How characteristic of this page. TreveX^talk 12:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

TreveX, thanks for your support!

Pecher, I don't see the points I've stated above as "difficulties [... I] have". I see them as fairly obvious facts. My question was adressed primarily to the most experienced editors, since I thought their experience would be useful. (Primarily doesn't mean exclusively, of course, and I appreciate your response as well.)

I find it very difficult to believe that you think "the new anti-Semitism" is a well-defined scientific term on par with "general relativity" in Einstein's theory.

To clarify my original question: I'm not saying that the concept of new anti-Semitism is "murky or ill-defined". Some concepts of new anti-Semitism are very well defined. I'm saying that there are a number of concepts of new anti-Semitism. The term is used in a number of different ways.--Denis Diderot 13:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, you've changed your tune from "not well-defined" to "differently defined". Diderot, that's the problem with making sweeping and unconstructive comments like the one you made above: you have offered nothing specific and practical, while saying there are some big (but unidentifed) problems with the article. I see no reason in continuing this pointless debate. When you make some specific suggestions aiming at improving the article, others may indeed give you a hearing. Pecher ^Talk 14:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Denis, the way we deal with it (and must deal with it according to policy) is that we simply repeat what the published sources say on the matter. We prioritize the most authoritative published sources (academics writing within a field that is directly relevant e.g. history; senior journalists writing in mainstream newspapers and journals; professional researchers in a relevant area; and so on). We decide what the majority view is among those sources, and we write the article prioritizing that point of view, citing our source for each edit, sticking very closely to what the source said, or actually quoting. We then decide which are the significant-minority views, and we make sure the article gives them prominence, also citing sources at each point, as above. We ignore tiny-minority views: in fact, we make sure they are not represented. We do not include any of our own opinions, terms, or arguments. We do not join sources together in a way that effectively creates a new position or argument. This is what we must do according to WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS. It is actually very easy to do this. It just requires some reading of the sources — as well as careful reading of, and adherence to, the content policies — so there should be no problem writing this article.

The problem we have stumbled into is that three of the people contributing here — HOTR, CJCurrie, and TreveX — have not read any of the authoritative sources who write about new anti-Semitism. So they continue to insist it doesn't exist. All we can do is say "please read the sources." And that is where we seem to be stuck. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

HOTR, CJCurrie, and TreveX — have not read any of the authoritative sources who write about new anti-Semitism. So they continue to insist it doesn't exist. For "authoritative sources" please read "what's on SlimVirgin's bookshelf". Please stop patronising everyone and trying to position yourself as an absolute authority on what is authoritative and what isn't. We are acutely aware of the claims made about anti-semitism by the authors you reference and have never contested that these views should be on the page. You seem to have so little respect for other people's positions that you claim that people don't know what they are talking about simply because you disagree with them. There are plenty of "authoritative sources" for citations which have been put forward and rejected by you on the basis that you consider them POV or irrelevant.

It is clear to me that you aren't interested in compromise or working with other users with whom you disagree. You unilateraly scuppered efforts at mediation by rejecting the mediator while making no constructive criticism of their work whatsoever. The ratio of effort to results on this page is so low that I am considering giving up completely, which should please you as you have stated previously that you hoped CJCurrie and Homey would "get bored" and leave this page as your own private playground. TreveX^talk 23:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm the second editor who has tried to answer Denis only to be rebuked by you. Fine, as my bookshelves aren't good enough, please tell us: which of the published sources on new anti-Semitism have you read, either papers or books (excluding newspaper articles)? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that your bookshelves aren't good enough -- what is there should be represented here. I'm saying that you don't need to have read several books on anti-semitism cover to cover in order to make an intelligent contribution. What you seem to be doing is to try and undermine other editors on the basis that they are not as well-read on the subject as you, when what you should be doing is considering each edit on its own in the context of citations given. I find your criticism of CJCurrie particularly unfair as (s)he has actually read a whole book in response to your goading. No one doubts that you have the most books on antisemitism. What do you want? Executive fiat over all edits on this page?

Since you ask, a selection of my reading includes [18], [19], [20], [21]. I have mentioned a couple of other journal articles I found in Athens somewhere on this talk page. NB: PLEASE DON'T GET INTO THE GAME OF PICKING THIS SELECTION TO BITS

Coming back to the mediation issue, it is instructive to read your response to someone giving their free time to help improve this article: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-04-16 New anti-Semitism#Discussion. You appear to want Wikipedia to be some sort of elitist clique. Here's a taster of exactly how patronising things can get: "Please recuse yourself from all cases until you have more experience, because you'll honestly do more harm than good." Yes, I'm sure the mediation cabal will thank you for that. They are so desperate for mediators that they ask everyone who requests mediation takes on another case. TreveX^talk 00:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that is what slimvirgin is trying to do at all. She is simply stating that the conclusions that a couple of other editors are coming to are somewhat odd considering some of the works that they have referred to. I think her statement is justified especially since many of their conclusions would be somewhat erroneus with any availible sources.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The first link isn't about new anti-Semitism; the second is just a survey; the third is good; the fourth doesn't work but I see it's just an article in the Nation. When I said "authoritative sources," I meant scholarly, and your bibliography confirms the problem here. You haven't read a single book or paper on the new anti-Semitism, and you seem to think that doing so is somehow beneath you. Perhaps you believe that knowledge and education are old-fashioned ideas, not worth bothering about. I'm not saying these things to have a go at you, or to engage in cheap personal attacks. I'm being deadly serious here. You wouldn't dream of going to a page about black holes, supposing you had no relevant education and had done no serious reading, and presume to tell the editors on the page that you could edit it just as well as anyone else. You wouldn't dare go to civil engineering and start writing about how bridges are built. But you come here with a different attitude, for some reason. Heck, who needs to read anything for this? Here's good old Tariq Ali in Counterpunch, telling us what to think. Oh look, here's a European Union survey. Zionist plot. Obvious, innit.

I am asking you very seriously, and with respect (I mean that) to do some serious reading, and then come back here, with some knowledge, and help to write a good article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Slim, what works critical of NAS have you read?Homey 02:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

It depends what you mean by "critical." I've read all the books I know have been published about the new anti-Semitism, except a British one that I can't get hold of. I'll send you a reading list if you want, though you can easily compile one yourself using Amazon, because there aren't that many given how new it is. If by "critical," you mean dismissing it as non-existent, I haven't read any, because they don't exist so far as I know, though if you know of any books or serious papers, let me know and I'll read them. Have you read any of the literature?

Let me know whether you want me to start looking for an informal mediator. My criteria would be that it be a very experienced editor; someone who is very familiar with the content policies; and obviously someone able to be neutral. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

---

SlimVirgin: "Perhaps you believe that knowledge and education are old-fashioned ideas, not worth bothering about." Are you for real? This is a lower-than-low personal attack and the single most patronising thing I have ever read on a talk page. You're not the only one at (an ancient) university you know.

I'm off and you won't be seeing me here again. TreveX^talk 00:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

SV, why do you keep utilizing the logical fallacy known as appeal to authority?Homey 02:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all, an appeal to authority is not a logical fallacy. Secondly, as an admin you should know that we have to edit according to NOR and V, which are precisely appeals to authority. Third, why on earth should asking that people educate themselves be regarded as any kind of invalid appeal? Knowledge is good. Knowledge of who the good sources are and what they say is what's needed on this page. Everything else is a distraction, because all we're meant to do is report what the good sources are saying. You can't do that if you haven't read them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Homey, may I remind you that tu quoque is a logical fallacy. When SlimVirgin points out (correctly) that your pattern of editing reveals that you have no idea about the subject of the article that you attempt to edit, you attempt to deflect the argument at SLimVirgin: "what works critical of NAS have you read?" That's a cheap and pointless argument; we're not discussing what SlimVirgin has or has not read, we are discussing your edits, which boil down to POV-pushing using highly unreliable sources and tendentious obsession with the article's intro. When an editor is serious about doing something in an article, he starts with changing the body of the article and only then, if the changes are significant enough to warrant a change in the intro, he amends the intro. You, however, do it the other way around, completely disregarding whether the body of the article supports your changes or not. Pecher ^Talk 07:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

There are still serious problems with this article

1) Encyclopedia articles may describe ideas or reality. They may do both in the same article but not at the same time. Some things are only ideas, such as, for example, a unicorn. There are no real unicorns, but that's not a problem. There's no need to create Unicorn (term) to distinguish it from real unicorns. The problem with this article on new anti-Semitism is that it often isn't clear whether the text refers to a concept, a term, or reality.

To take but one example: a concept can't be controversial as such. Only some claim made _about_ the concept can be controversial. Only the claim that there _is_ a new anti-Semitism, where "new anti-Semitism" is understood in a specific sense is controversial. There are also many claims involving the phrase "the new anti-Semitism" that are uncontroversial.

2)"The new anti-Semitism" isn't a single concept. It is a term or phrase. Different people who speak or write about "the new anti-Semitism" or "a new anti-Semitism" attach different meanings to the expression. There are several concepts of "new anti-Semitism". This is one factor which makes this Wikipedia article difficult to write. It isn't like writing an article about Paris or chimpanzees. Because of the NPOV principle we can't single out only one meaning of the term. I have given many examples here, and I will write more about the early history of the term below.

It is simply incorrect to say, as the current article does, that "[t]he adjective 'new' is used to distinguish this form of anti-Semitism as differing in its rhetoric, professed purpose, and place on the political spectrum from the old anti-Semitism, which is associated with the Right and motivated by racial theory, religion, or nationalism." _Most_ people use the term with this connotation, but many do not. And what exactly is a "proponent of the term new anti-Semitism"? Is that someone with a t-shirt saying "new anti-Semitism"?

3) Putting the word "new" in front of the word "anti-Semitism" is obviously not especially creative. As long as people have been talking about anti-Semitism, they have occasionally referred to some "new anti-Semitism". But the term acquired a more distinct meaning after World War II. "New anti-Semitism" generally meant post-Hitler anti-Semitism. It was an obvious fact the the defeat of Nazism was an enormous global setback for anti-Semitism. It didn't disappear completely, of course, but it became largely sub-surface. Until the early 1970s there are only occasional references to any "new anti-Semitism", usually with reference to Eastern Europe.

Perhaps the first mainstream reference to the new anti-Semitism as a major phenomenon was Lipset's 1971 article in New York Times. He made the typical observation that the new anti-Semitism was associated with the political left, whereas the old had been mainly a right-wing phenomenon. But he also _included_ the resurging right wing anti-Semitism as part of the phenomenon. The new anti-Semitism is often associated with criticism of Israel, but it differs from normal criticism of Israel, because it focuses on Jews as such and "implies that Jews are guilty of some primal evil". Lipset also discussed Arab anti-Semitism at some length.

The 1974 ADL report by Forster and Epstein was very different in it's approach. It was much more focused on criticism of Israel. The basic argument (also used by Abba Eban and others) was that any completely disproportionate criticism of Israel or Zionism was anti-Semitic in nature; if Jews were denied the rights granted to all other peoples, then that implied anti-Jewish intentions, sentiment or prejudice.

During the final decades of the 20th century there was still not much discussion of the "new anti-Semitism" outside academic and Jewish cirles. The discussion usually revolved around specific anti-Semitic acts (e.g. the 1982 attack on Rome's main synagogue). Some people, e.g. Per Ahlmark, 1989, have argued that the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon led to a radical rise of European anti-Semitism. "Before 1982, denying the Holocaust or trivializing it by cheap comparisons would have been unacceptable in the media. Now such comparisons are commonplace." (Ahlmark used the term "old-new anti-Semitism")

One important thread of the early "new anti-Semitism" discussion concerned the Nation of Islam in the US and related movements. In 1992 Henry Louis Gates Jr. wrote about the book The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews. [22] He called it "the bible of the new [black] anti-Semitism", "one of the most sophisticated instances of hate literature yet compiled" which "massively mis-represents the historical record".

--Denis Diderot 20:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you suggest some changes, Denis? If you could either edit the article directly or post suggested changes to the talk page it would be helpful. Homey 01:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest many changes, unless someone else fixes these problems, but I don't have enough time right now.

--Denis Diderot 19:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

"Inaccurate criticism"

SV wrote in her edit summary: "don't repeat inaccurate criticism from CJC" See direct quotation: "A direct quotation is a clear quotation said by a person and generally involves a whole sentence; it is absolutely verbatim in the order and is specific."

Clearly, parsing the sentence by including a period where one was not originally is a violation of this concept. The fact that you have now changed your rendering of the quotation to do away with the period you added suggests that, in fact, you know CJC's criticism was in fact valid. Homey 23:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you going to revert yourself or do I have to report the violation? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I've already reported it and asked for another opinion. Now, can you actually respond to my point above regarding direct quotations and how your original quotation was made to look like a direct quoation when it wasn't due to your parsing a sentence and inserting a period where one was not originally? If you think CJC's criticism is inaccurate why did you change the paragraph in an attempt to remove the offending period? Homey 00:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Because it wasn't meant to be there. I had initially written ..." SlimVirgin ^(talk)

The addition to the quote used emotive and politically charged language. It is completley innappropriate for this article.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The entire topic is politically charged and emotive (see the tag at the top of this page). Should we do away with the article entirely? Look, I'm sorry but the quotation accurately reflects the views of many critics of NAS. It therefore adds a necessary component to the intro. We can't exclude a critical view just because you don't like it or because it's "charged", if we did we'd have to get rid of most, if not all, of the article. SV felt it was necessary to include a quotation. Perhaps she can explain her reasoning. Myself, CJCurre and Jpgordon are all of the view that the quotation needs to be used in its entirety rather than parsed. Does anyone really believe that many critics of NAS don't see it as a cover for Israel's behaviour towards the Palestinians? Does anyone really think it's more accurate to leave out reference to the Palestinians and imply that critics just view it as a cover for Israel's behavior in general. I think it's quite clear from the arguments we've heard that the real concern here is to hide the accusation of Israeli brutality towards Palestinians in the Occupied Territories -- frankly, that the same people who are trying to obscrure or hide this aspect of the criticism are the same who defend NAS as a theory lends credence to NAS critics.Homey 02:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Please don't make insinuations about other editors and their motives. Comment on content, not on other contributors. Please don't make me regret being lenient. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 02:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Homey, you're lucky you managed to charm someone into removing your 3RR block. Please stay away from the Talk: page for the duration of the 24 hours, particularly as you cannot seem to stop lacing your comments with WP:CIVIL violations. The talk page is for discussing article content, not making insinuations about other editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I explicitly asked Katfan if posting to this talk page was ok, she said yes. As for my last statement can you please address my question... does anyone really think it's more accurate to bowlderise the Ali quotation by leaving out his reference to Israel's treatment of Palestinians?Homey 22:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Homey's addition to the quote constitues a gratutitous appeal to emotions, it has nothing to do with reason. I don't really understand how you continue to argue for its inclusion.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Moshe, it's not my "addition to the quote", I added nothing to it, I simply substituted SV's truncation of a sentence with a direct quotation (ie one in which the sentence being quoted is complete). I do not see how anyone can possibly claim this to be improper. Homey 22:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It's nonsense to suggest that the whole quote "accurately reflects" the view of many NAS critics. That it's a "ploy" by Israel is a silly point to make, which is why I added Tariq Ali's name to it, so that people can see where it's coming from, because if you know his views, it will come as no surprise. I suppose it's Israel that's arranging for synagogues to be attacked and gravestones to be vandalized. Even you, when you first paraphrased it, changed what the source said and added Israel "and its supporters," because you realize that it's silly to say Israel is behind this. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

SV, if it's valid for you to quote part of Ali's sentence why is it not valid to have a direct quotation that actually quotes what he said accurately?Homey 22:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• I suggest the quote should not be used at all unless it is used in its entirety. The nuance of his statement changes when the only half of it is used -- it becomes an interpretation, not a quotation. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Originally only 3 words were taken from the quotation, which is commonly done for intros. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

JP, how does the nuance change? That is, what do you understand from the shorter quote currently on the page, as opposed to the whole sentence? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the abbreviated form has him talking about all criticism of Israel; the fuller form has him talking specifically about criticism of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. For me, it's the distinction between "I hate Israel" and "I hate Israel's treatment of Palestinians"; I don't know whether Ali would see it that way, but if we're going to cite him, we shouldn't broaden his accusation. Anyway, the Tariq Ali sentence isn't even necessary; the only thing it adds to what is said in the first sentence is the "cynical ploy" phrase. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly so; the Tariq Ali quote adds nothing to the first sentence except inflammatory rhetoric that actually undermines the argument of the critics. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The intro/lead is far too long as it is, and should definitely not contain any example quotes of opinions. If there are (generally accepted and uncontroversial) authoritative quotes on the nature ot the new anti-Semitism or the controversy, then such quotes, if very brief (<7 words) could possibly be useful. To put it differently: quotes used to exemplify arguments or positions in a controversy don't belong in the intro at all in any Wikipedia article, unless everyone on that side of the controversy agree that the quotes represent their opinion. (I.e. a quote from something like a manifesto, collective statement or white paper.) --Denis Diderot 07:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree that the lead is too long, because it's a long article, but I agree that the quote is inappropriate if it's used to have a pop at Israel and to include reference to Palestinians, given the article is not about them. If anyone is to be cited in the intro from either side, they should be academics and not political adventurers, and any quotes should be kept very brief i.e. two or three word phrases, not whole sentences. I've twice asked Homey to supply some scholarly material, but with no luck so far. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The lead should describe what the new anti-Semitism is as briefly as possible. That's the whole point. It's a service to readers. We don't want to waste their time. Then Wikipedia users may look at the table of contents or read the entire article, depending on their interests. NPOV implies that examples should be chosen fairly and represantively. That's impossible to do in a brief introduction and may be very difficult even in the main text, since NOR implies that we can't say that something is "representative" whithout clear and unambiguous evidence. On the other hand, excluding quotes because they contain stupid, ignorant or generally vile statments is incorrect. The criteria are: (a) Is this a notable opinion? (b) Does it represent the opinions as clearly as possible? (Wikipedia can't be clearer than the authors) (c) Does it stick to the article topic? (If it's a rambling quote, it needs to be broken apart.) Also, it's very important to quote in such a way that opinions aren't quoted as facts. Very often authors will make a controversial claim in passing as if it were a fact (for the propagandistic effect). Such quotes also need to be taken apart as to make clear that's it's merely the opinion of the author and not an established fact. To quote only academics in introductions doesn't help the least bit, since individual academics may have very strange opinions and represent no one but themselves. Very few academics share prof Neumann's opinion on the usefulness on anti-Semitism, for example. --Denis Diderot 13:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The lead should not be as brief as possible. Intros are meant to stand as mini-articles, giving the reader an overview of the contents. The recommendation for anything over 30,000 characters is three-four paragraphs, and this is 70,000. See WP:LEAD.

Todd Endelman and Yehuda Bauer) are mainstream, notable, and relevant specialists, particularly Bauer, who is very eminent (Endelman specializes in Jewish studies and Bauer is a Holocaust expert). Tariq Ali is not an academic, and although he is known, he is very extreme, not representative of mainstream opinion at all, and has no specialist background in this area. The other person, David Clerk, is not known at all, and we've seen no evidence that he has a specialist background, so we definitely shouldn't mention him in the intro, and probably not anywhere in the article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I've removed David Clark because it's absurd to cite someone in the intro that no one's heard of and who isn't known to have a relevant background. I won't remove the Tariq Ali quote, but it should be replaced by a known scholar in a relevant discipline published somewhere more reputable than Counterpunch. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

"Opinions" by persons like Tariq Ali do not belong to Wikipedia at all because Wikipedia is not a soapbox, especially for bigots. Quoting Tariq Ali in this article is like quoting claim by David Duke that racism does not exist in articles on anti-Semitism or racism and presenting his opinions as legitimate criticism of the concept of racism. Pecher ^Talk 14:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

We quote people's opinions all the time Pecher. If we did not we wouldn't have half the articles we do (including this one which consists entirely of people's opinions. Our task is not to censor opinions we don't like but make sure that the opinions cited are properly attributed. That's all. Homey 22:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

And I agree that quoting something from Counterpunch is debasement of Wikipedia standards on reliable sources. Pecher ^Talk 14:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

To clarify my previous comment: I'm only mildly at odds with the [[WP::Lead]] policy, so that's not the issue here. "As briefly as possible" means "As briefly as possible without decreasing readablity or the amount of information provided." (The whole article should be also as brief as possible in the same sense, but it's especially important for the lead.) To me, this is completely obvious. No one wants to read irrelevant or repetitious stuff.

I agree completely with what you say about Endelman, Bauer, Ali and Clerk. I think we both agree that opinions _about_ a controversy by generally acknowledged experts should be treated differently from opinions that form part of the controversy itself. (We may have a sociological study of a controversy, for example, that both sides regard as fair and accurate.) The difficulty is to represent the opinions of different sides in a controversy. So before referring to an opinion (and possibly quoting the author), we have to determine whether it's an authoritative opinion _about_ the controversy or an opinion that represents one side. In the latter case, the opinions should be presented only on the basis of notability. We can't say "these people clearly don't know what they are talking about" and ignore their opinions, even if they clearly don't know what they're talking about. It's that NPOV again.--Denis Diderot 15:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The difficulty here is that HOTR and CJCurrie want to say that there is no such thing as "new anti-Semitism". They can find sources like Tariq Ali to support them — who is, as you put it very well, part of the debate, rather than a source who is simply speaking about the debate — but they can't find anyone serious to support them. The reason for that is that all the authoritative sources agree that it is a real phenomenon and also that it emanates from the left. I stand to be corrected, of course, and still hope that Homey or CJCurrie can find notable, scholarly sources from relevant fields, because then we could fashion a more intelligent article, which is above all what I would like to see. But the problem is that Homey and CJCurrie will claim that any scholar who states that new anti-Semitism is a real phenomenon, and that it stems from the left, is by definition part of the debate and representing one side only, no matter how eminent they are, because Homey and CJC will not shift from the view that the new anti-Semitism doesn't really exist, and that insofar as it might, it doesn't come from the left. We could drop them into an entire library full of books that show it does exist; they would simply dismiss them as evidence of how good Israel or Zionists are at propaganda. In other words, they're operating within a closed system of thought. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Excellent points, both of you. And to briefly get back to the question of why the abbreviated quote is still representative of Ali's views regarding "New anti-Semitism", the answer is quite obvious; the issue with Israel is its relationship with the Palestinians. That's what all the "criticism" is about, all the UN Resolutions, all the Human Rights groups reports etc. No-one really imagines that the "criticism" is about Israel's roads, or income tax system, or its representational system of government, or environmental policies, or its airport regulations, etc. What Israel is demonized for on a near-hourly basis in the U.N. is for its relationship with/treatment of Palestinians. Period. The attempt to insert into the introduction lengthy and near-hysterical rhetoric on the point from a notorious crank does not "clarify" what the criticism is about, but rather is yet another bald-faced attempted at that same demonization. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's take this to mediation. If you are confident that your position reflects Wikipedia policy than you have no reason to fear mediation. Homey 22:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

"Fear"? That's a highly emotive word. If I fear anything, it's that the mediation committee will assign a completely new editor to this case, one who has been editing for effectively under two weeks, who has no apparent experience with or knowledge of Wikipedia's policies or in dealing with Wikipedia content disputes.

Oh wait, that's exactly what it did. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Michael Neumann

I just deleted the reference to the notorious anti semite Michael Neumann being Jewish, there is NO cite for that.Incorrect 14:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't he say he is in his article What is Antisemitism? ? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

He says it in multiple places, both online and in print (The Politics of Anti-Semitism, The Case against Israel) Besides he looks Jewish and Neumann ain't exactly Fernandez in terms of names. I don't even know why we are debating this. There are plenty of citations and as far as I know no counter evidence at all Jbolden1517 17:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Jbolden1517, please enlighten us: what does it mean to "look Jewish?" I'm sitting here laughing. I seem to recall that the Museum of the Diaspora once had an exhibit that showed different faces of people who are Jewish to highlight just how diverse the Jewish population is. --Leifern 14:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

It boggles the mind that you have now twice claimed that Neumann is Jewish because he "looks Jewish". Jayjg ^(talk) 17:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Read back. Did I actually say that? What do you hope to accomplish by starting a flame war? Jbolden1517 17:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the "looks Jewish and has a Jewish-sounding name" isn't particularly usable data to support documenting someone as Jewish. However, him saying he's Jewish should suffice. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you twice said "he looks Jewish", including just above. The fact that you provided other evidence is irrelevant to the fact that you considered his "looking Jewish" (and his "Jewish" name) to be corroborating evidence. BTW, "Neumann" is German. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

And that's and accurate description of what I said. That there was a written record and his looks were corroborating evidence, which is different than what you said the first time. OK now what was your point in phrasing this in a way likely to start a flame war? What was the goal? jbolden1517^Talk 18:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Why does his Jewishness have any place in the article? Pecher ^Talk 19:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Anyways someone like Neuman would have reason to say he is Jewish when he isn't. And "looking Jewish" does not count as corroborating evidence, sorry. By that way, what do you mean by looking Jewish, because he has a mustache and wear glasses he is Jewish? What about the curly hair? he doesn't have that, I guess he can't be Jewish.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm unclear about the point of this discussion. Are we now expected to list the ethnicities of our sources? On this article, or on every article? All the sources, or only some of them? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I propose that we should list the ethnicities only of those sources when the Jewishness of the author can enhance the propaganda value of the author's anti-Jewish arguments. Pecher ^Talk 20:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I further propose that the ethnicities of editors on this page be declared if and only if their Jewishness enhances the view that the editor is part of a "cynical ploy" to protect Israel from criticism. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Neumann is Jewish [23]. It's not disputed anywhere. More bio here. I don't think his Jewishness is relevant in this article.--Denis Diderot 12:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Question for SlimVirgin

Oh look, here's a European Union survey. Zionist plot. Obvious, innit.

Have you actually read the European Union survey? CJCurrie 02:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Why then are you suggesting that it blames recent manifestations of anti-Semitism on a Zionist plot, when it does nothing of the sort?

Feel free to provide a source to back up your original claim. CJCurrie 03:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't suggest it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Then how should I interpret "Oh look, here's a European Union survey. Zionist plot. Obvious, innit."? CJCurrie 01:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

You've lifted it out of context. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

You wouldn't dare go to civil engineering and start writing about how bridges are built. But you come here with a different attitude, for some reason. Heck, who needs to read anything for this? Here's good old Tariq Ali in Counterpunch, telling us what to think. Oh look, here's a European Union survey. Zionist plot. Obvious, innit.

Does "Zionist plot. Obvious, innit" refer to something other than "a European Union survey"? One way or the other, how should I interpret its meaning?

On another matter, are you seriously suggesting that understanding the NAS is as complicated as understanding civil engineering? CJCurrie 01:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

How dare Slim have the gall to ask someone if they have read relavent sources. Why doesn't she understand that only CJ is allowed to ask people that. She just kills me sometimes.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

SV commented on a specific source. CJCurrie 01:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Informal mediation

Is anyone interested in finding an experienced editor who understands the content policies to be an informal mediator? I could probably find one who would be impartial if people think that would be helpful. The mediation committee is very tied up so formal mediation is probably not available. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Feel free to suggest a name. CJCurrie 03:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll look for someone then. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Protected

Please work out your differences instead of edit warring. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/poll 03:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Intro

Thanks for pointing out WP:NPA. I wasn't aware of it and will reaffirm my resolve to edit WP rather than.... Back to the topic. Can anyone say why the following is not a useful beginning:

The meaning of the term New anti-Semitism is debated. Its meaning has changed since the first recorded use in 1902 in an Encyclopedia Britannica article. At that time the term meant what some historians now call "modern anti-Semitism" (racial anti-Semitism, as opposed to pre-19th century anti-semitism which was mainly religious). The term was revived in 1971 in the New York Times Magazine and in 1974. The revival of the term sparked debate because etc etc

placed by Mccready 12:54, 28 April 2006

I can. You are getting into a great deal of complexity. Why would the first sentence or two address the fact that "new anti-semitism" used to mean racial anti-semitism as opposed to religious anti-semitism? Further I really question whether the term per say is debated. I think the debate is centered more on:

1. does the phenomena described the term "new-antisemitism" exist?
2. is the term deliberately biased and propagandistic? That is the phenomena may exist but not be "anti-semtic".
3. Should the moral force of anti-semitism (attacks on a discriminated against jewish minority) be treated the same when addressing people in power. In other words are Jews in Western Europe and America entitled to the same level of deference?

Those IMHO are the actual debates. The meaning of the term is pretty clear cut: "attacks on Jews or Israel motivated at their core by denial of the legitimacy of Judaism of the Jewish nation." So for example there are many on this board who are openly anti-zionists, that is they disagree that jews are a nation at all and thus attacks on legitimacy of the Jewish nation are justified. But as far as I can tell they don't disagree they are denying that Jews are a nation they just don't think such opinions are "anti-semetic". Just as anti-semitism has nothing to do with Semites "new anti-semitism" has very little to do with the racial anti-semitism.

The meaning of the term "new anti-Semitism" is not what people debate. Reasonable people either accept some existing definition or propose a new one. The debate concerns the nature of the new anti-Semitism. The main controversy concerns the relationship between the new anti-Semitism and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I hope your reference to 1902 is meant to be some sort of joke. --Denis Diderot 19:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you aware you are replying at the wrong level. You are replying to me and the 1902 quote is from McReady. Not really sure what your intent was. And actually he was arguing the definition is vague (i.e does it include racial anti-semitism)? jbolden1517^Talk 20:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Ilka Schroder

I'd like to add a link to the "Organizations and forums whose stated aim is to fight anti-Semitism"

Ilka Schroder, a Christian German former member of the European parliament as part of the Green party has created an institute to fight new anti-semtiism. The main page is http://www.ilka.org/ and some pages are available in English at http://www.ilka.org/index_en.html.

Interesting. Thanks for posting it. We might want to mention her response to the EU report, if she's notable enough. [24] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Its been a few days an no one is objecting so I'll make it official jbolden1517^Talk 15:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Can I ask anyone why this is an issue. Everyone agreed to this link? jbolden1517^Talk 23:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Because nobody else patrols the {{editprotected}} category, it's a damn shame. Added your link Ashibaka tock 00:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! jbolden1517^Talk 10:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I guess I'll change it back.

Slim Virgin's definition

[This originally was a response to a snip by me, but I moved it so that it gets pulled out of the silly conversation it was originally part of since it deserves a serious discussion jbolden1517^Talk 21:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)]

Again, this takes us back to the fundamental problem of people simply not having read up about it. The definition is not so vague, although we're not being allowed to flesh it out in the intro. It is a form of Judenhass that emanates from the left. It is characterized by the demonization of the world's only Jewish state and of Jews as an ethnicity and a religion. Israel's right to exist as an equal member of the world community is denied. The Jewish people's right of self-determination is denied. Double standards are applied, whereby the actions of the Jewish state are judged according to a different standard from, say, the actions of all the neighboring states around her. Jews as a people are held collectively responsible for the actions of the Jewish state. Symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism are used: for example, blood libels are resurrected, the Jewish state and Jewish people are associated with wild conspiracy theories involving Jews or Zionists or Israelis plotting to take over the world, or being in control of other governments, or being responsible behind the scenes for various acts of terror mistakenly attributed to others. Arab and Islamic anti-Semitism are excused and ignored. Straw-man attacks are engaged in (as in the current intro), whereby Jews are alleged to claim that any criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism, and that is then used to condemn Jewish groups as unreasonable, and to deny that there is any such thing as the "new anti-Semitism." All of the above is accompanied by an international resurgence of violence against Jews and their synagogues and schools, particularly in Europe. It is found in conjunction with anti-Americanism (because Jews are believed either to control or be too influential with the American government), anti-Zionism, and the anti-globalization movement.

The above is the new anti-Semitism. We are not being allowed to say any of this in the intro, because people who have not read the literature are telling us there is no such phenomenon, even though they do know there is, because they almost certainly recognize the description. They may simply call it something else. If they do call it something else (or have no name for it), that is their original research. Authoritative sources are calling it "the new anti-Semitism." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Well done. I'd be happy with that intro-definition. I like it more than my definition (attacks on Jews or Israel motivated at their core by denial of the legitimacy of Judaism of the Jewish nation). What is the counter argument being offered against your definition? Simply that what's being described doesn't exist or is there another counter claim being made? Certainly we can have articles about non existent phenomena Abduction phenomenon Transubstantiation Timeline of Arda so in and of itself that argument wouldn't carry any weight in terms of a definition at least IMHO.

As an aside I think we should do another archive of this talk page to get rid of dead threads jbolden1517^Talk 21:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Jb. All of the above can be sourced to books and papers about the new anti-Semitism. The counter-claim is that the campaign against the new anti-Semitism is a "cynical ploy" by Israel and Zionists to shield Israel from criticism. It's not clear whether the opponents are saying there is no such thing, or that there is but it's not important. The "cynical ploy" is from the Tariq Ali quote in the intro. No authoritative sources support the counter-claim to the best of my knowledge. We've asked HOTR and CJCurrie for good sources but the two in the intro (Tariq Ali and Derek someone) are the only two they've produced so far: one from a newspaper article and one in Counterpunch, which I would rule out as a source myself.

I'll do some archiving now. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Well I don't think either those 3 counter claims need to be in the introduction. There probably should be a "counter claims section" with:

1. new anti-semitism doesn't exist
2. its really just anti-zionism
3. ....

for example the Tired light article has theory rejected by just about everyone but the into focuses on describing the theory. The counter case is presented primarily in Redshift. Now if that is what is done for a theory that is almost universally rejected I see no reason to treat new anti-semitism that much worse. So I think Tariq Ali is good evidence that the left rejects claims of existence of new anti-semitism I can provide a bunch more links like that (http://www.zmag.org/racewatch/znet_antisemitism.htm). The article already does a pretty good job of presenting the counter case however. I can't see any reason to reject a clear cut structure with a simple statement in the intro. jbolden1517^Talk 00:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I would agree. We don't include the views of Holocaust deniers in the introduction to the Holocaust. All serious researchers of the Holocaust agree that it occurred in more or less the form we all know about. Similarly, all serious researchers of the new anti-Semitism agree that it exists and can be defined more or less as I defined it above. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Bad analogy. First of all I think it's questionable, if not offensive, to compare those who question NAS to Holocaust deniers (talk about guilt by association). Second, SV's premise is incorrect - all NAS *proponents* agree there is a NAS but not all who research anti-Semitism share that conclusion. Frankly, having had a father and grandfather who survived detention in the Transnestria cocentration camps and a grandmother who died in Auschwitz I find the comparision personally offensive. Please don't trivialise the Holocaust for the purpose of creating a tortured analogy. Homey 02:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Quit the amateur dramatics. Several editors had family who died in the Holocaust and they don't feel the need to go around mentioning it during edit disputes. The analogy was simply that we don't give prominence in articles to people who take the view the topic isn't a valid one, unless there really are no reliable published sources on it. An example of the latter would be Islamofascism, which is discussed as a dubious term because, although there are sources, they are all or most of Counterpunch/Frontpagemag quality, with no scholarly papers. Not so with the new anti-Semitism. The researchers who write about new anti-Semitism are serious writers, and are no more "proponents" of it than scholars who write about the Holocaust are "proponents" of that. I wish you would try to address the substantive issues. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I am familiar with SV's views -- I am of the opinion that she tends to see demons hiding in the dark and behaves often in an aggressive and unfair fashion which can cause anger/frustration in others which she then might be interpreting as confirming her theory of alterior motives, I think she tends to be unintentionally biased towards there being widespread anti-Semitism. (Although sometimes she does deal with anti-Semitic vandals but those are usually pretty incoherent and transparent.) Anyways, there are a significant number of individuals who believe that the label of anti-Semitism is too boardly applied in order to silence valid analysis or criticism. Some who have commented on this in academia are Norman Finkelstein, Michael Neumann, John Mearsheimer, Stephen Walt, Tony Judt, and Juan Cole -- all but Cole have spoken about it in reputable sources in scholarly books and papers. I do think that SV is leaving out significant counter information here. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 03:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point. For the purpose of the definition of new anti-Semitism its complete irrelevant whether it is common, uncommon or doesn't exist at all. For an extreme example the definition of a "interior Saccheri parallelogram" is a parallelogram where each angle is less than 90 degrees. No such shape exist and no such shape could ever exist. That doesn't in any way interfere with the definition. Existence is not required to define things. Right now we are just trying to work out a definition not existence. Existence, frequency, etc.. comes later. I think the article should link to anti-zionism (the jewish people shouldn't have nation rights); as a justification for NAS. The question is what should be in the introduction not what should be in the counter case section.

Now I happen to believe that NAS exist and is very common. Further I happen to believe that Nuemann, Finkelstein, Judt are New Antisemites (they deny that the Jewish people have the same national rights as other people); so its not unreasonable that they would reject NAS. But again if I'm wrong I don't see how that changes the introduction. Moreover on teh acquisitions being too common I happen to agree, still doesn't change anything. The key thing is the introduction just has to make sure the question being debated / explained / explicated is clear; nothing more jbolden1517^Talk 04:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly right. Everything that I included in the definition above can be sourced to reliable sources. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

This is not to mention that LLG's comment was little more than a personal attack aimed at one of the editors. Pecher ^Talk 09:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

"Quit the amateur dramatics." No, an example of amateur dramatics is using specious analogies to the Holocaust or to Nazis, see Godwin's Law in an attempt to insulate your argument and discredit others. SV, plese try to restrict your arguments to the merits or demerits of various proposals rather than trying to discredit views you disagree with through gratuitous use of guilt by association. You seem addicted to the use of various logical fallacies whether they be this one, appeal to authority, or ones that CJCurrie has brought up. I think you know enough not to do this so please refrain from cheap debating union tricks from now on. Personally, I am offended when people invoke specious comparisons to the Holocaust to promote their particular argument whether it's "pro-lifers" describing abortion as a Holocaust or certain Israeli politicians comparing the Holocaust to the withdrawal of settlers or other policies or indeed if its anti-Zionists comparing the treatment of the Palestinians to the Holocaust. It's wrong and offensive in every instance, SV, including the case in which you did this and yes, I do find it personally offensive and revolting so please respect that and desist.Homey 13:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep in mind that the subject here is antisemitism and its denial, therefore I think Holocaust denial is very relevant. When Jews are casually being equated to Nazis, the Jewish state - to Nazi Germany and the Israeli flag is singled out to be burned at WWII commemoration [25], I find the invocation of the Godwin's Law ironic to say the least. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Also I do not remember it being us that brought up the "validity" of comparing the Israeli government to the Nazis.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Nobody, not one person, is "denying" anti-Semitic incidents. What is contested is the classificatation of these incidents into a new genre of anti-Semitism. The comparison to the Holocaust and Holocaust denial is odious, manipulative, contemptable and offensive to many of us whose parents (in my case) suffered in the actual Holocaust. Thank you for the lecture on what I have a right to be offended by but you have no right to tell me not to be offended. Homey 12:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

"I do not remember it being us that brought up the "validity" of comparing the Israeli government to the Nazis"

I don't think such comparisons are valid whether they come from Israeli politicians and right-wing Zionists who opposed Rabin or Sharon or whether it comes from opponents of Israel (I think I've made that quite clear and I'm unaware of anyone here saying such comparisons are valid). Please save your straw dog arguments for your echo chamber where you're much more likely to get away with false claims about what people who disagree with you are saying.Homey 13:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think I got mixed up, sombody was doing that on a different page. Anyways I do not appreciate the insult and do not think it was waranted, and I find it perplexing that you would even accuse me of a straw man argument when you are doing the same thing (except you are doing it on purpose) by suggesting that we are "using" the holocaust in an attempt to win the argument, when it is clear to me that no rational person would come to that conclusion.

Also as you should know, our personal histories are irrelevant so I do not understand why you would bring up the thing about your parents, it seems like you are attempting to suggest that your views are more valid because of their persecution which would constitute a logical fallacy (which I would call at-whay Finkelstein oes-day).- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

"Also as you should know, our personal histories are irrelevant so I do not understand why you would bring up the thing about your parents"

Because, as the child of a Holocuast survivor I'm personally offended by frivolous and specious references to the Holocaust. Is that clear enough? It's a shame you can't even acknowledge my right to be offended. Homey 02:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd be betting most of us are Jews here and have family that was affected by the holocaust. I find it offensive that you would suggest we would attempt to use it to gain an advantage on some stupid argument.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

And yet, SV raised it. Homey 03:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Name change

Modern anti-Semitism sounds better. Psychomel@di_(s)cussion 11:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

We could do that but it would be a completely different article "NAS" refers to a specific theory. Though perhaps having an article (or section in Anti-Semitism if there isn't one already) on modern anti-Semitis would help us sort out some of the mixture of streams occuring in the NAS article at present. Homey 13:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

That'll work too. Psychomel@di_(s)cussion 14:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Like, maybe, Anti-Semitism#Anti-Semitism in the 21st century. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we may need two separate articles -- one dealing with a perceived motivational shift in anti-Semitism, another dealing with recent occurrences of anti-Semitism.

As I've noted many times in this discussion, it seems inappropriate to equate the two when the "old" anti-Semitism has not disappeared. CJCurrie 01:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The term "modern anti-Semitism" is used by historians to mean different things. Some (e.g. Philip Burrin) trace it back to the 19th century, and describe it as a response to Jewish emancipation, where Jews began to be hated for their material success. It's important not to be simplistic about the different forms of anti-Semitism. Hence the importance of reading, erm, books. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't use the term "modern anti-Semitism", Slim -- I wrote "recent occurrences of anti-Semitism", specifically to avoid this sort of ambiguity.

Hence the importance of reading, erm, books.

I've already read the 1974 book; I plan on reading Tanguieff this week, and I'll be tackling Rosenbaum after that. CJCurrie 01:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate that (though I don't know what the 1974 book is). The Rosenbaum is good because it's a collection of papers from scholars, activists, writers, journalists (some more serious than others; some explicitly mentioning "new anti-Semitism", and some not), and there you'll see the different ways people are approaching this. There are more scholarly papers too. I'll maybe put one or two up later. Please understand that all I want for this page is an educated and intelligent article, rather than a knee-jerk thing (from either side). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The 1974 book was The New Anti-Semitism, which I've commented on in the archived section. CJCurrie 02:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Simple typo

Ref 74 and 75 are the same. Could someone fix it when the fighting is over.... Kjaergaard 01:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

A note on sources

I've managed to snag a copy of Tanguieff's book, which I'll be reading in the upcoming week. The book itself is actually quite short, though unfortunately I'm busy with non-Wiki activities until Tuesday.

From what I can tell, it looks like another polemic. Perhaps I'll be pleasantly surprised. CJCurrie 01:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Testing the house

Can editors live with the intro in its current state? Homey 12:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• The "proponents" and "opponents" paragraphs should be deleted; everything that leads up to it is sufficient for an intro. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The intro is self contradictory. "The term was used... to describe a wave of anti-Semitism that has escalated, particularly in Western Europe, since the Second Intifada in 2000" i.e. what it describes is real. "Proponents of the term "... Left.. anti-Americanism...opposition to Zionism..."Third Worldism." " That is for proponents its about who. "Critics of the concept contend that it serves to equate legitimate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism, and that it is sometimes used to silence debate." Critics are about why the term shouldn't be used.

This is really confusing. IMHO

1. a clear cut definition (with no implication that the phenomena is real or not) -- SVs definition seems fine for this
2. clear indication that of who accused of doing these acts as part of the definition (since we aren't asserting accuracy) -- i.e. the actual vandalism and attacks
3. a clear indication of who is accused acting as apologists for these acts with a discussion that term is applied to the acts themselves or to the apologists (i.e. the terms describes two different activities) -- i.e. the left and anti globalism movement
4. then a statement about large counter cases: doubt about existence, term describes a real phenomena but the word choice is propagandistic, etc... [unsigned]

I'm not entirely happy with the current version, but I could live with it (for the most part).

I still think there are a number of improvements that should be made, and I certainly think it could be written more clearly. My suggestions, if the introduction is to be rewritten, are as follows:

(i) The introduction should state that the term "NAS" has emerged in response to a real phenomenon.

(ii) The introduction should clarify that there is disagreement as to the nature of the phenomenon.

(iii) The introduction should clarify that there is disagreement as to the extent of the phenomenon -- ie., that some believe it is applied too broadly.

(iv) The introduction should not define the NAS as both A) a contemporary international resurgence of anti-Semitism, and B) a perceived "new type" of anti-Semitism. As I've noted many times, these are not identical concepts -- the current international resurgence is premised in several sources, including "old" anti-Semitism. "B" may be a part of "A", but "B" does not equal "A".

The current introduction covers points (i) and (ii), and at least suggests (iii) -- reinserting the BFO quote would cover all bases. I still have serious concerns about (iv) that I'd like to see addressed. Comments welcome. CJCurrie 18:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The introduction clearly needs to be re-written. And regardless of what agreement is reached on the introduction, since every un-protecting of the page results almost immediately in Homey edit-warring and the page being re-protected, we're obviously going to need a mediator. Ideally one who has been editing for a least 3 weeks. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I'm surprised at the sudden lack of interest in mediation here. Just a few days ago Homey was insisting on it, asking if I was "afraid" of it. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I've e-mailed Homey, left a note here for him, and another one on his talk page, but he gives no response whatsoever, after having suggested mediation himself, after having twice requested page protection, and after violating 3RR several times and being blocked for it once. Yet now we've found a (very good) mediator, there's silence. We can always proceed without him. He'd then be skating on very thin ice if he turned up afterwards to start reverting again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the need for a personal attack. I replied to your email by stating I was happy with the introduction as it is now. I said that both in an email and on this talk page where I opened the "testing the house" section. Please explain how that answer is "bizarre". I believe I've also made it quite clear that I'm currently on an internship and am working long hours as a result with access to the internet for only about an hour a day. This limits my ability to be involved in any mediation. Had you accepted mediation when I proposed it I would have been able to participate more fully. As it is, if you want me to participate, you'll have to wait until the end of the month. If you can't wait that long then I'm afraid I'll have to say no to mediation for the time being.Homey 04:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You only proposed it very recently so I don't see what difference that makes. You've caused a lot of trouble on this page but now that we've found an experienced mediator, you're too busy to help sort it out. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I've caused a lot of trouble? Compare the introduction today to its state before I started "causing trouble" and you'll see it's much improved.

There has been no improvement. That's why we need mediation. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You should have agreed to it when I suggested it. At the moment, I have no time for this due to work commitments so if you want me to agree to mediation you'll have to wait until June. Homey 04:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for at last giving an answer. We'll proceed without you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Slim,

Proceeding without one of the main participants does not strike me as a viable option. Homey has said that he is prepared to consider the possibility of mediation in a month's time, and I do not see why we need to rush into mediation at present.

I was prepared to consider the possibility of mediation now, but I will not endorse this heavy-handed approach. As a matter of principle, I am also going to reject the offer of mediation for the time being, with the option of reconsidering at the start of June when all participants may contribute freely. I suppose you still have the option of calling out your mediator, but I can't see what the point would be when only one side in the discussion recognizes his authority.

Also, please bear in mind that neither Homey nor myself is under any obligation whatever to accept your preferred candidate for the position. I do not object in principle to the individual you've suggested, but the onus is on you to ensure that a fair procedure is followed. Arbitrarily and unnecessarily bypassing one of the major participants is not fair procedure. CJCurrie 05:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

If one grants the theory of a "New anti-Semitism" (I myself have mixed feelings), there is an obvious parallel between the way that the rhetoric of Antisemetismus replaced the rhetoric of Judenhassen in the 19th century and the way that, in some cases, the rhetoric of "anti-Zionism" may now have supplanted "anti-Semitism", acting as a cover now that anti-Semitism is an equally discredited position. Does anyone know of someone citable who makes this argument? - Jmabel | Talk 04:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It's an interesting argument, Joe. I haven't read it anywhere, but I'll take a look around. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It's also begging the question.Homey 06:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

How so? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Putting things in that way assumes that the NAS theory is correct and that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitic. [ SV do you think that one can be anti-Zionist without being anti-Semitic? [User:HOTR|Homey]] 14:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC) [sig moved for clarity]

It's not an example of begging the question. If it's seeking to explore the relationship between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, it's not simply assuming they're the same thing. And to answer your question, I believe they're separable, but not always separate. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

As has been explained before, the New anti-Semitism is a phenomenon, not a theory. Leftists object to it being described as "anti-Semitism", because they think it implicates them as anti-Semites - exactly as rightists, neo-Nazis, etc. all object to being described or implicated as anti-Semites. They all insist that the term "anti-Semitism" is simply used to stifle "valid criticism", whether of Israel, Jews, or both. But that doesn't mean the actual activities it describes are "theoretical". Jayjg ^(talk) 20:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, do you think the accusation of anti-Semitism has ever been wrongly made and, if so, do you think that the accusation was ever falsely made for puposes of political expediency?Homey 02:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Homey, do you think all accusations of anti-Semitism are wrongly made and, if so, do you think that the all accusations are falsely made for puposes of political expediency? Also, do you think David Duke is an anti-Semite? He insists he's just exposing Zionist crimes and Jewish ethnocentrism. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

To answer your questions: No, of course not. Yes, Duke is an anti-Semite. Now, please answer my questions. Homey 14:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Can someone have supported the indian wars without being a racist? Sure there are lots of possibilities some people might want economic expansion and would have displaced migratory whites with genocidal force. Others supported the missionary aspects and felt they justified the indian wars. Is it likely however. No by in large people who supported the Indian wars did not believe that brown people had the same kinds of property rights as white people. If it weren't racial they wouldn't have been quite so violent.

Similarly someone who denies that Jewish state should be dissolved has a pretty high burden to not be anti-semitic. But note I'm pretty generous in claiming people are really Zionists, the Satmar are technically anti-zionist they just move to Israel in large numbers, vote and pay taxes. That is they have moved from Joel Teitelbaum to Agudath Israel in their political orientation at this point they are basically Zionist in all but name (and they are an extreme case)

Finally there is no begging the question for purpose of an introduction. A term is a term is a term. Its entirely possible to argue that "new anti-semitism" is not a form of anti-semitism just like anti-semitism itsself has nothing to do with Semites. Jmabel's point is entirely in keeping with the spirit of NAS claims.

jbolden1517^Talk 14:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Can someone have supported the indian wars without being a racist

The more germane question is is it anti-Semitic to a)be opposed to the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and b)be opposed to the legal, political and economic inequality of Israeli Arabs and Israeli Jews and c) favour a secular state where Israeli Jews, Arabs and others are fully equal politically, economically, legally and socially regardless of religion, ethnicity or culture? Is it anti-Semitic to believe that Israeli Arabs should be able, in practice, to be in cabinet positions up to and including Prime Minister and that the state should belong to all of its citizens, not just those who belong to a particular religion. Is it anti-Semitic to believe that all those who were born in what is now Israel or whose parents or grandparents were born there have the right to be citizens? Is it anti-Semitic to believe that Israeli Arabs should be allowed to buy land owned by the Jewish National Fund, should be allowed to be members of kibbutzim, should be able to live in any community in Israel. Is it anti-Semitic to believe that schools in Israel should be desegregated and that the publically funded system of religious schools be replaced with a single, public, secular and integrated school system. Is it anti-Semitic to describe aspects of the situation of Israel as apartheid? Is it anti-Semitic when leaders of the anti-apartheid struggle such as Desmond Tutu make the comparison? Homey 02:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

As reputable authorities repeatedly state in our article, criticizing Israel is not antisemitism, but singling it out for demonization uncomparable with other countries - is. As a matter of fact, it would be hard to criticize it more than Israeli press does it already. Here are some facts, figures, and statistics. I would expect the same zeal criticizing Israel's neighbors - from you, Mr. Tutu and others.

There is only one refugee population on the planet that passes their refugee status to the next generation. Could you explain why? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

"As reputable authorities repeatedly state in our article, criticizing Israel is not antisemitism, but singling it out for demonization uncomparable with other countries - is"

Can one be anti-Zionist, ie opposed to the state of Israel without "demonizing" it? Please note, one who for a binational secular state that is not a "Jewish state" or "Palestinian state" per se can certainly be said to be opposed to the existence of a Jewish state. Is that anti-Semitic? If you want a state where Jews and Palestinians can live together side by side, a state where both are equal and welcome, a state that doesn't identify solely with one group or the other - if that's your position are you an anti-Semite? According to the dogma of New Anti-Semitism, yes, you are. Homey 14:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

No according to the "dogma" of NAS arguing that Israel should not be allowed to be a Jewish state while being OK with:

1. The Islamic Republic of Pakistan
2. Vatican City
3. Kingdom of Saudi arabia explicitly declaring that the Quaron is the constitution and Sharia the law
4. Theravada Buddhism being the state religion of Myanmar

That's the real problem. Why the focus on Israel? jbolden1517^Talk 16:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

"There is only one refugee population on the planet that passes their refugee status to the next generation."

Sorry, you've lost me. Are you speaking here of the Palestinian or Jewish peoples?Homey 14:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Palestinians, of course. Jewish refugees (as all other refugees) are integrated into the countries in which they live; their children do not inherit that status. Only Palestinians have the unique "hereditary refugee" status; as well, they are the only group that has a special U.N. refugee body devoted entirely to them, the UNRWA. Every other refugee in the world is supported by the UNHCR. Oh, and the UNRWA is the single largest UN body, with over 25,000 employees; 99% of the employees are Palestinians. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept when we remembered Zion.

If, in fact, the Palestinians were the only people ever to be "hereditary refugees", the Babylonian exiles would never have returned and, indeed, Jews would have lost the "right of return" some time in the first century CE or so. Please set aside your double standard Jayjg. Homey 14:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Jews don't have a special U.N. mandated permanent refugee status. Are you considered a refugee, Homey? Does the U.N. have a body devoted to fulfilling your refugee needs? Israel can make whatever naturalization laws it likes, but that doesn't make you a refugee. Try again. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Homey, the correct quote from Psalm 137 is By the rivers of Babylon — there we sat down and there we wept when we remembered Zion. Pecher ^Talk 21:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Homey is engaging in original research. It doesn't matter what any of us thinks about anti-Semitism or new anti-Semitism. All that matters is what reputable sources say about it.

Can I have an answer please from Homey and CJCurrie about the mediation? The prospective mediator has agreed, and is a very neutral experienced editor. The other main disputants have agreed, and it was Homey's idea to proceed with mediation in the first place. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Really SV, by this point you should be able to tell the difference between comments made on a talk page and edits to an article. The "original research" appelation cannot be applied to something someone is arguing in a talk page. Homey 14:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

But there's no point engaging in it on the talk page. It doesn't matter what we think about the topic, so you're just wasting time. Please say whether you agree to mediation. It was you who suggested it after all. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

You should have agreed to it when I suggested it. At the moment, I have no time for this due to work commitments so if you want me to agree to mediation you'll have to wait until June. Homey 04:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to suggest we should hold off on mediation for a bit longer. I'm about to look over some of the source material recommended by SV, and would prefer to have the time to digest said material before mediation talks take place.

Please note that I was busy with non-Wiki matters for two days, and was not evading the question. CJCurrie 03:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

No worries, CJ. Can I tell the mediator that you agree but would prefer that it start in, say, a week's time? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I've said elsewhere that I would prefer to converse with the proposed mediator directly before agreeing. This isn't meant as a comment on the mediator's abilities; I simply want to be certain that the decision is appopropriate. CJCurrie 04:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

That sounds fair enough, CJ. You can e-mail him using the link on his page if you like. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I have done so. CJCurrie 23:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, CJ. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

You only proposed it very recently so I don't see what difference that makes.

I proposed it on April 16th. Since then I have been offered a three week "internship" which may lead to a permanent position. The internship began April 26th and is scheduled to end in two weeks buy may be extended another week depending on the state of the campaign. That means I'm unlikely to have much time until June.Homey 05:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

There has been no improvement. That's why we need mediation. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you really want me to prove you wrong by posting the diffs?

Thank you for at last giving an answer. We'll proceed without you. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC

That's not your decision to make. Mediation has to involve all parties. I am not able to participate until June for the reasons I have given. If you refuse to accomodate this, particularly after repeatedly denying my requests for mediation that were made when I did have time, you'll be "skating on thin ice" if you object to reversions I make because I disagree with a mediated settlement made in my absence. Homey 05:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You're going too far and you need to start seriously considering your position. You're an admin. You've repeatedly violated 3RR on this page. You've been blocked for it once, after pretending not to understand the policy. You've twice called for page protection then tried to withdraw as soon as you realized "your" version might not be protected. You've been asked by an uninvolved admin to "quit playing games" that are "unbecoming" of an admin. [26] You called for mediation so long as you believed an editor with 30 edits might be doing it, but now that an experienced mediator might help out, you're not so keen. For days you ignored questions about whether you want to be part of it. Now you say that we all have to wait until June to fit in with your timetable. And what is to happen to the article between now and then? Are you saying all editing to it has to be suspended? Or are you saying you'll find time only to revert but not to join in the discussions? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Random third-party comment here: It sounds as if all parties, except one that currently doesn't have time have agreed to participate in the mediation. All but one of the editors should be sufficient to reach a consensus which Homey should respect when he returns, but of course, further discussion of any points he feels still need work could be held on the talk page and I'm certain a mediator could be engaged again should it really come to that *again*. I don't see any reason that the mediation would be improper -- to insist that a certain editor be involved when they've indicated inability to do so smacks of ownership problems. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 05:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I've also rejected the offer of mediation on principle. I don't see the need to rush into mediation at present, and I'm willing to provide an alternative approach (see below). CJCurrie 05:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Slim,

(i) Harping on a perceived 3RR violation is not especially civil, particularly given that the "offense" has not been repeated.

(ii) No one in this discussion is under any obligation to accept your nominee for mediation. Both Homey and I have given reasons for rejecting the offer for the time being (see above) -- however, either one of us would have been in our rights to dismiss the offer on purely procedural grounds.

(iii) There may be another method of approaching this situation without calling for mediation. All of the main contributors in the present discussion are veterans of the page, and our views are a matter of public record. Perhaps it would be useful to bring in neutral contributors with no prior involvement in the discussion, to offer non-binding suggestions for improvement. This might allow for "a fresh perspective" on some increasingly stale discussions, and it would still allow for the possibility of mediation in a month's time. Would this be agreeable to you? CJCurrie 05:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

That was the point of the mediation: to get a fresh perspective from an experienced editor. You've only said no because Homey did, because you had already agreed in principle. We can go ahead without either of you because enough people have said yes, and we all have different views. The point of contention is what kind of sources to use and how to use them. We need an experienced, neutral editor's guidance for this. I strongly urge you not to follow Homey's lead on this, CJC, because he has been very disruptive. I am certain that if you were to join us, we could find a mutually satisfactory conclusion between us, so please reconsider. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Update:

I have spoken with the proposed mediator, and would agree to accept him in a month's time, subject to certain clarifications to which he seems agreeable.

His letter to me indicated that he would be willing to defer mediation to a time suitable to all parties.

Responses to SV:

That was the point of the mediation: to get a fresh perspective from an experienced editor.

Mediation is a way of getting a fresh perspective from experienced editors; it is not the only way.

You've only said no because Homey did

Please stop impugning motive, Slim: I said no because you were willing to begin mediation without the consent of another contributor and I considered this inappropriate. I suppose you could interpret this as "saying no because Homey did", but it leaves out a rather significant middle step.

you had already agreed in principle.

I agreed in principle to mediation some time ago, and I've just now indicated that I'm willing to accept this proposed mediator in a month's time. I never gave any indication, provisionally or otherwise, that I would accept "mediation by this person, right now".

I strongly urge you not to follow Homey's lead on this, CJC, because he has been very disruptive.

You accused me of similar behaviour not so long ago, Slim. I strongly disagreed with your assessment then, and I disagree with it now as well. Homey has given a credible reason for not being able to participate in discussions; accusing him of "being very disruptive" does not bring the discussion forward.

I'm rapidly arriving at the conclusion that it might be better for all of us to take a step back for a few weeks, and solicit the opinions of others. CJCurrie 20:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Look, Homey can't hold up editing the page for a month because of personal issues. If he can't devote time to mediation, which he himself insisted on, then we'll have to forge ahead without him. He seems to have enough time to edit other articles, like Self-hating Jew. Wikis wait for no-one. Are you in or out? There are certainly enough editors here to fix up the article regardless. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

CJCurrie wrote: "I said no because you were willing to begin mediation without the consent of another contributor and I considered this inappropriate. " Oh come on, CJC. That's almost WP:POINT. There are enough editors here now who want to fix this article up to go ahead without both of you, but I (and probably all of us) would prefer that you were on board. The article can't be held up for another month. We've already had this disruption since mid-April, when the rewrite was about to start (actually had just started), and with practically nothing to show for our time since then except broken relationships. It's time to start pulling together, and Mel is a great person to help do that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

"We've already had this disruption since mid-April,"

SV, you may do better if you ceased describing the edits you disagree with as "disruptions". It's simply the wrong attitude to have for wikipedia.Homey 04:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not the edits alone, of course, but the edit-warring, 3RR violations, constant innuendo and assumptions of bad faith, game-playing (multiple times) at WP:RFPP, and now game-playing about mediation, that is disruptive. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

So let's see, the first time this page was protected it was not my preferred version. A second time I put up a protection request and then rescinded it, the page was subsequenly protected independently. Sorry, no game playing there. As for mediation, check my edit times and IPs - it is you who are assuming bad faith and making innuendos. Homey 00:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)