Talk:New antisemitism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Introduction

Controversy regarding new anti-Semitism centers on whether opposition to the state of Israel expresses anti-Semitism only as a symptom or by-product, or whether it is more closely linked to, and supported by, more general anti-Semitic beliefs.

This appears to be a false (or perhaps a misleading) dichotomy, as many would argue that some forms of opposition to the state of Israel do not express anti-Semitism in any manner. I believe I understand what is intended by "symptom or by-product", but the wording could surely be improved (assuming that this section of the text is necessary to the article at all, of which I'm skeptical). CJCurrie 03:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• On another matter, I apologize for the "who wrote this garbage?" comment. The phrase "closely associated with the left" can be read more than one way, and I (perhaps erroneously) assumed the less charitable interpretation [this is clarified below, in point (i)]. Sorry for the outburst. CJCurrie 03:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC) (update: 19:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC))

Hi CJ, I'm afraid I don't understand your point. The new anti-Semitism is closely associated with the left, in the sense of emanating from the left, originating with the left, being identified with the left etc etc. This is according to all the literature on it. Do you have a source showing that it's closely associated with another point on the political spectrum? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I've clarified the intent of my previous statement in point (i) below. I was primarily concerned with presentation, not content. CJCurrie 03:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Explaining my recent edits

(i) My removal of The new anti-Semitism is closely associated with the Left and its opposition to Zionism

I have two problems with this statement.

While it is unquestionably true that manifestations of the "new anti-Semitism" have been disproportionately (although not exclusively) associated with the left, this wording seems questionable. Writing "A is closely associated with B" could suggest or imply that "B is closely associated with A", which would be a POV violation in this instance (albeit perhaps an unintentional one). I'm not disputing the basic point, but the presentation could be improved.

"The Left and its opposition to Zionism" also appears dubious, for the simple reason that "the Left" does not hold a unified opinion in relation to Zionism: there are some countries in Europe where the established Left is more supportive of Israel than is the established Right. Rephrasing this as "the Left and opposition to Zionism" would convey the essential point without leading the reader to a potentially false or oversimplified conclusion. CJCurrie 18:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

(ii) My tense changes in reference to the "old" anti-Semitism

As I noted in my edit, the "old" anti-Semitism has unfortunately not disappeared from history: there are still several pro-Nazi parties and organizations in Europe. One could argue that much of the contemporary anti-Semitism in the Arab world is also rooted in "old" motivations.

Applying the past tense to the "old" anti-Semitism suggests that it has been replaced by the "new anti-Semitism": a position which is at best contentious, and at worst inaccurate. (I recognize that this suggestion may not have been intentional, but the phrasing could still lead to this interpretation.)

I do not consider this change to be especially contentious. CJCurrie 19:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

(iii) My removal of Controversy regarding new anti-Semitism centers on whether opposition to the state of Israel expresses anti-Semitism only as a symptom or by-product, or whether it is more closely linked to, and supported by, more general anti-Semitic beliefs.

I have already noted that I consider this to be a misleading dichotomy, and that I'm skeptical as to whether the sentence truly adds value to the article. If it is to be retained, I would recommend changing "expresses" to "is associated with". The former suggests causal responsibility; the latter would not. CJCurrie 19:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Add: I'm also skeptical as to whether "opposition to the state of Israel" can be identified in toto as "either A or B". It is indisputable that some opposition to Israel is closely linked with and supported by more general anti-Semitic beliefs; the controversy rests on whether or not all opposition to Israel is inherently linked (intentionally or otherwise) with anti-Semitism.

I do not believe the current wording accurately identifies the nature of the controversy. CJCurrie 19:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

(iv) My addition of In contemporary discourse, it is often used to identify a form of anti-Semitism which is perceived to differ from earlier forms of anti-Semitism.

My rationale is as follows: the term "new anti-Semitism" can be used in both a general and a specific sense. The introductory sentence appears to make use of the general meaning: it refers to increases in anti-Semitic activity, but does not distinguish whether these are "old" or "new" in motivation. The article should clarify that the term can be used in different ways, and that its "specific" manifestation is the source of contention. CJCurrie 19:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

(v) My adjustments to " A minority of secular and non-Haredi Jews also oppose the state of Israel and Zionism from a standpoint of anti-nationalism."

This change was an afterthought. The sentence which follows names Tamar Gozansky from Maki as an example; my understanding is that Maki's position toward the State of Israel is complicated, and cannot be summarized simply as "opposition". I chose to remove the words "the state of Israel and" to ensure accuracy. I now believe that I can accomplish the same by changing "and" to "and/or".

As per (ii), I do not consider this point to be contentious. CJCurrie 19:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I should also clarify why I made these changes.

I was involved in a radical overhaul of this article page over a year ago, and helped design an introductory wording which (for a time) seemed to have the general support of all parties. I've not followed subsequent developments as closely, though I've reviewed the page from time to time.

I recognize that my editorial tone yesterday was unduly harsh, and I apologize for this. I do not, however, believe that the aforementioned changes should be dismissed out of hand.

I plan to return the changes from points (ii) and (v) to the article, as I've already noted that I don't regard these as contentious. I welcome debate on the other points. CJCurrie 19:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

TreveX's edits (on 11 April)

TreveX, I reverted your changes because I couldn't see how they were improvements. You seemed to be trying to cast doubt on the existence of the new anti-Semitism before we had even explained what it is. The intro does include criticism, but it shouldn't precede a description. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I am simply trying to reflect the fact that the use of the term "new anti-semitism" is relatively controversial and has been regularly contested. Firstly, I would be grateful if you could explain what you find problematic about the inclusion of the following at the end of the introduction.

The term is somewhat controversial. Some commentators and academics have argued that allegations of anti-semitism are used to silence debate. It has been suggested that those who make legitimate criticism of Israel's actions or argue that pro-Israel groups have significant influence over US middle-east policy are very likely to be labelled as anti-semites.[includes reference]

I deleted the sentence beginning "Controversy regarding new anti-Semitism centers on..." as it is predicated in the belief that all criticism of Israel is anti-semitic:

The sentence states that opposition to the state of Israel:

(a) Expresses anti-Semitism as a symptom or by product

(b) Is closely linked and supported by more general anti-Semitic beliefs.

Criticism of Israel isn't necessarlily anti-semitic, but this is stated as such in the intro! TreveX^talk 13:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

TrevelX, Please site a single source that says that all criticism of Israel is antisemitic - there are none! It is a common ploy of anti semites to claim that they are being labeled as antisemites because they oppose Israel - in fact it's the virulent focus on Israel and it's perceived shortcomings, to the exclusion of its other positive aspects and the flaws of other nations, that identifies one as an anti semite, e.g. the un is antisemitic not because it has objected to certain of Israel's actions, but because in world in which China has raped Tibet, Muslims in the Sudan are murdering black animists and Christians in the south of Sudan, women are mutiliated in much of the Muslim middle east, free speach is prohibited in most of the Muslim middle east, Afghanistan attempts to prosecute Muslim who want to become Christians, etc. etc. the overwhelming bulk of UN motions of censure for human rights violations are directed towards Israel. Therefor your attempted edit derives from an anti semitic impulse. Incorrect 15:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I have lightly edited the intro to make the point that I made above.Incorrect 15:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

CHOO CHOOO! Here comes the logic train - last stop is you! I am not an anti-Semite. Your argument seems to be that I am focusing on Israel rather than other nations, which makes me an anti-Semite. You don't know anything about me, my opinions, interests and beliefs and almost certainly haven't checked what other articles I edit on Wikipedia. If I was going to write about the Sudan or Tibet, I wouldn't be doing it in an article about anti-semitism, would I? Your attempts to infer that I am an anti-semite have no foundation in reality whatsoever. TreveX^talk 18:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Often

(copied from SV's talk page) A suggestion for compromise:

The term, which first came into general use in the early 1970s, is used to distinguish a form of anti-Semitism regarded as differing in its rhetoric, its professed purpose, and its place on the political spectrum from the old anti-Semitism, which is associated with the Right and is motivated by racial theory, religion, or nationalism.

Would you agree to the insertion of the word "often" after the second comma? CJCurrie 03:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I know it seems like a very minor point to disagree with, so I'm sorry if I seem picky, but if it's only "often" used to distinguish etc etc, how else is it sometimes used? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The article's introductory paragraph uses the term "new anti-Semitism" in a general sense: it describes an increase in anti-Semitic activities, but does not attribute this to a motivational change on the part of the culprits. I would suggest that this "general" usage should be distinguished from the "specific" usage (which is really what the article is about, and which does describe a change in motivation).

Recent manifestations of anti-Semitism may be "new" in a chronological sense, but also "old" in terms of motivation. I believe the introductory section should clarify this point. CJCurrie 03:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I was presenting it more as a point of deductive reasoning than a point of debate. But if a source is required ...

Here are some excerpts of a European Union report on modern anti-Semitism unofficially published by European Jewish groups, and reprinted in the Jerusalem Post on 3 December 2003.

"For many anti-Semitic incidents, especially for violent and other punishable offences, it is typical that the perpetrators attempt to remain anonymous. Thus, in many cases the perpetrators could not be identified, so an assignment to a political or ideological camp must remain open.

"Nevertheless, from the perpetrators identified or at least identifiable with some certainty, it can be concluded that the anti- Semitic incidents in the monitoring period were committed above all either by right-wing extremists or radical Islamists or young Muslims mostly of Arab descent, who are often themselves potential victims of exclusion and racism; but also that anti-Semitic statements came from pro-Palestinian groups as well as from politicians and citizens from the political mainstream.

[...]

In the extreme left-wing scene anti-Semitic remarks were to be found mainly in the context of pro-Palestinian and anti- globalization rallies and in newspaper articles using anti-Semitic stereotypes in their criticism of Israel. Often this generated a combination of anti-Zionist and anti-American views that formed an important element in the emergence of an anti-Semitic mood in Europe. Israel, seen as a capitalistic, imperialistic power, the 'Zionist lobby,' and the United States are depicted as the evildoers in the Middle East conflict as well as exerting negative influence on global affairs. The convergence of these motives served both critics of colonialism and globalization from the extreme left and the traditional anti-Semitic right-wing extremism as well as parts of the radical Islamists in some European countries.

More difficult to record and to evaluate in its scale than the 'street-level violence' against Jews is 'salon anti-Semitism' as it is manifested 'in the media, university common rooms, and at dinner parties of the chattering classes.'

This report, at least, suggests that contemporary manifestations of anti-Semitism cannot be identified as exclusively "old" or new".

I would also direct your attention to this Ha'aretz article by Barry Kosmin and Paul Iganski from June 2003, and especially to the following passage:

Judeophobia in contemporary Britain is also not an organized conspiracy. It does constitute, however, an opportunistic coalition of interest for the new left, the far right and radical Islamists.

Similarly this entry, entitled "Old poison in a new cup", by Emma Kate-Symons from the 7 May 2005 edition of The Australian. Note that this article specifically uses the phrase "new anti-Semitism" to describe a diverse array of ideological positions.

The leader of Germany's Jewish community, Paul Spiegel, has called on mainstream German politicians to fight the new anti-Semitism exemplified by the popularity of the neo-Nazi National Democratic Party. "The threshold for spreading anti-Semitic prejudice has changed significantly since 2000," he told Der Spiegel.

[...]

The most insidious manifestation of the new anti-Semitism is not coming from the extreme Right or the alienated Muslim immigrant community, says a growing band of Jewish leaders and academics. It is being nurtured by the influential mainstream western European media and intellectual elite: from the BBC to The Guardian, Le Monde and The Independent newspapers, and by academics from Britain to Germany.

The most celebrated example caused a storm of criticism last week after Britain's Association of University Teachers voted to boycott Israeli academic institutions over Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories.

[...]

A growing body of academic literature and even fiction supports Jacobson's claims. In The Return to Anti-Semitism, Gabriel Schoenfeld is scathing of the European establishment for giving fuel to the new anti-Semitic fires.

For Zuroff the new anti-Semitism is being driven by the minority Muslim population in Europe and by the politics of the Middle East, the extreme Right and by the extreme Left's success at penetrating mainstream media and political opinion with its anti-Israel biases.

CJCurrie 04:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not following your point. You objected to: "The term, which first came into general use in the early 1970s, is used to distinguish a form of anti-Semitism regarded as differing in its rhetoric, its professed purpose, and its place on the political spectrum from the old anti-Semitism, which is associated with the Right and is motivated by racial theory, religion, or nationalism."

You want to write instead that it is "often used to distinguish." My question to you is: do you have a source that sometimes or ever uses the term "new anti-Semitism" to refer to something other than "a form of anti-Semitism regarded as differing in its rhetoric, its professed purposed, and its place on the political spectrum, from the old anti-Semitism ..."? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The third reference listed above specifically identifies "new anti-Semitism" in Europe as being grounded in several ideological sources, one of which is the "old" anti-Semitism. Specifically, The leader of Germany's Jewish community, Paul Spiegel, has called on mainstream German politicians to fight the new anti-Semitism exemplified by the popularity of the neo-Nazi National Democratic Party. The other sources do not use the term "new anti-Semitism" specifically, but are for all intents and purposes arguing the same point. CJCurrie 05:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC) (update: 05:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC))

But is it Paul Spiegel who is saying that, or is it the reporter for the magazine? Do you have a link? I have maybe eight books on my shelves here about the new anti-Semmitism. Every single one defines it as our article defines it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The article does not indicate if the definition is from Spiegel or the reporter, though I'd argue that it qualifies as an "acceptable" source one way or the other.

In any event, I'm not disputing that the term "new anti-Semitism" is normally used to define a perceived attitudinal change within contemporary manifestations of anti-Semitism; I'm simply noting that the term can be applied more broadly, and sometimes is.

Perhaps I can suggest another means of resolving this situation:

(i) The introductory paragraph of this article identifies "new anti-Semitism" as referring to an increase in anti-Semitic activities and beliefs.

(ii) The second paragraph identifies the term as referring to an attitudinal change.

(iii) As noted in the sources cited above, not all contemporary manifestations of anti-Semitism are grounded in an attitudinal change.

(iv) If the article is to deal only with attitudinal changes, would it not make sense to remove the introductory paragraph? CJCurrie 05:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, I don't follow. Rather than going back and forth like this, I'd prefer it if we did sourced-based research, and that we use people who have written or commented on the new anti-Semitism extensively, rather than a reporter for The Australian. I can back up everything in the article with a knowledgeable source (and if I can't and no one else can, the material should be removed). Therefore, can you please say exactly what you want to add and provide a source who says that exact thing? And then we can judge specifics, rather than exchanging our own views on the talk page (because our own views don't matter). So if you want to add that it's "often" used to describe X, please supply a good source showing that it is sometimes (not just once by a reporter) used to describe Y or not-X. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I think what Currie is trying to point out here is that the term "new anti-semitism" is not always and exclusively used to refer to left-wingish anti-semitism grounded in anti-zionism.

Take this article from ADL. It is entitled 'the new anti-semitism' but refers extensively to a resurgence of anti-semitism after 9/11. This includes the old-style Islamist anti-semitism, which has simply become more prominent. Succinctly, the term "new anti-semitism" can refer to:

(a) Anti-semitism motivated by anti-zionism and coming predominantly from the left wing.

(b) A resurgence in old-style anti-semitism.

TreveX^talk 13:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I think I've found a suitable source to back up what Currie and I have been saying. It's from an article on Jonathan Sacks' website:

We are now living through the fourth mutation. Today’s anti-Semitism has three components: The first is anti-Zionism, the notion that Jews alone have no right to a nation of their own, a place in which to govern themselves. No. 2—all Jews are Zionists and therefore legitimate targets like Wall Street Journal journalist Daniel Pearl. No. 3, Israel and the Jewish people are responsible for all the troubles in the world, from AIDS to globalization. Put those three propositions together and you have the new anti-Semitism. I am concerned that, unlike in Britain, tolerance has not been the default option in Europe for the past few centuries.

Found another one: You should be aware of this, but this is a serious issue. We now face a resurgence of antisemitism on a global scale, communicated by the internet, e-mail, tapes, and videos, lowtech and high-tech. Work that one out. This new antisemitism, I call it the fourth mutation.[1]

So we can see that the new anti-semitism can also be characterised as a resurgence of the old-style anti-semitism. Sacks is saying that anti-semitism has adapted, but it is still grounded in the old anti-semitism, even if it does draw on anti-zionism. TreveX^talk 13:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I think what Currie is trying to point out here is that the term "new anti-semitism" is not always and exclusively used to refer to left-wingish anti-semitism grounded in anti-zionism.

This is the general point I was attempting to convey. I might note that the introductory paragraph of this very article uses the term in a different (chronological) sense. CJCurrie 19:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Article Image

The image shown at the top of the article is a poor example of anti-semitism. The image itself claims the "Jews" it portrays as "counterfeit" suggesting they are, in fact not Jews. The poster takes issue with Israel and Zionism, and claims the war was largely done in the interests of Israel and greed on the part of both America and Israel. As much as others would wish it so, objection to the state of Israel's actions and to Zionism in general are not anti-semitism. Since the image goes so far as to even exclude Jews from its critism, it is not an example of anti-semitism and should almost certainly be removed. The use of said image is rather inflamatory but ultimately makes claims of new anti-semitism appear far weaker than I believe they actually are. - Kuzain 18:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Looking over this article more closely, I can see that it has a number of problems. Half the section on cartoons is devoted to describing a case in which a cartoon against Sharon is claimed as anti-semitic. - Kuzain 19:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed the original-research cutline that someone had added. The image is a very good example of the themes of the new anti-Semitism. The figure in red wears an American flag, Nazi symbol, and Magen David. Two figures in blue, apparently Jews wearing hats with the Magen David, peer out from behind him, the reason for the evil, smirking, with the words "No war for Israel" above their heads. Much of this symbolism is discussed in the article, so it's highly appropriate. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the image is an instance of anti-Semitism, but I'm puzzled as to why the caption was removed. CJCurrie 00:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Add: I suspect that the "Counterfeit Jews" phrase refers to the canard about Ashkenazim being the descendants of Khazars, and not "real Jews". Please note that I am not endorsing this belief, nor am I questioning that the poster's message and crude caricatures are a clear instance of anti-Semitism. I'm simply unsure as to why the caption was deleted. CJCurrie 00:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

If that is what it referred to then I would agree that it fits. I'm not well versed in anti-semitism or the beliefs related to it so it seemed confusing. I just viewed it as demonizing Israel and claiming it manufactured the war. And while I would agree that the claim is baseless, I don't agree that a strong dislike of Israel is the same thing as anti-semitism. - Kuzain 07:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

In fact, the image is one of the best illustrations of the main themes of the New anti-Semitism, i.e. the demonization of the State of Israel and the idea that Israeli machinations are behind everything that happens in the world and is detested by the New anti-Semites. Pecher ^Talk 20:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I feel that some of the editors on this page are getting their own views mixed up with what we're supposed to write about. We have to published what reliable published sources have said about the new anti-Semitism, no matter how strongly any particular editor disagrees with the sources (so long as they really are reputable). It's no use saying "But that's nonsense." Anyone who feels that way must write to the source objecting, but not to Wikipedia, because all we're doing is reporting; or else find an equally reputable source who says it's nonsense, and then we can quote him or her. But we can't weasel word what sources say just because some editors don't like it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

We have to published what reliable published sources have said about the new anti-Semitism, no matter how strongly any particular editor disagrees with the sources (so long as they really are reputable).

I direct your attention to the Australian quote, noted above. CJCurrie 00:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

This was one reporter writing in a magazine. Can't you find equally good opposing sources i.e. people who have studied the new anti-Semitism (or, as they see it, the lack thereof)? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Assuredly I can. But my point is that that the term "new anti-semitism" is not always and exclusively used to refer to left-wingish anti-semitism grounded in anti-zionism. CJCurrie 00:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, good. Please bring your sources to talk and let us know exactly what they say, so long as they say it about the "new anti-Semitism" explicitly, which is what this page is about. Once we know what the sources say, I'll be happy to collaborate with you on getting something well written and well-sourced on the page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Another problem with the introduction

The term new anti-Semitism refers to the contemporary international resurgence of anti-Jewish incidents and attacks on Jewish symbols, as well as the acceptance of anti-Semitic beliefs and their expression in public discourse.

The term, which first came into general use in the early 1970s, is used to distinguish a form of anti-Semitism regarded as differing in its rhetoric, its professed purpose, and its place on the political spectrum from the old anti-Semitism, which is associated with the Right and is motivated by racial theory, religion, or nationalism. The new anti-Semitism is closely associated with the Left and its opposition to Zionism, and to the existence of the state of Israel as a Jewish homeland.

The problem is as follows:

(i) Modern anti-Semitism emanates from different sources, including the radical right, the radical left and radical Islam (see sources noted above).

You can't base such a broad statement on one article from reporter, compared to the many books by experts. You'll have to find good sources for that statement, who talk about the new anti-Semitism specifically, and then attribute your statement to those sources. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

All three articles noted above make this claim. Beyond which, are you seriously suggesting that I'm required to source a claim that the radical right is involved in anti-Semitism? CJCurrie 00:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

(ii) If the "new anti-Semitism" refers to "the contemporary international resurgence of anti-Jewish incidents and attacks on Jewish symbols, as well as the acceptance of anti-Semitic beliefs and their expression in public discourse", then the term cannot be restricted to a motivational shift from older to newer forms of anti-Semitism.

What does that mean, and who is your source? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a matter of sources, it's a matter of logic. This very article defines "new anti-Semitism" in two different ways, in the first two paragraphs. CJCurrie 00:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

(iii) If the "new anti-Semitism" refers to "a form of anti-Semitism regarded as differing in its rhetoric, its professed purpose, and its place on the political spectrum from the old anti-Semitism", then it cannot be defined generally as the sole source of modern anti-Semitic activity.

Again, are these your own arguments, or do you have sources? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

See above. CJCurrie 00:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The only solution I see to this problem is the acknowledgement that the term can be used in more than one sense. CJCurrie 00:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

No, the solution is for you to find good sources for the edits you want to make. Please stick to NOR and V. As for my revert, I'm not ignoring your citation requests. I've made a note of them and I will find sources or remove the sentences you highlighted. I can't do it right now, however. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no interest in playing "dueling sources": I'm not a newcomer to this debate, and I'm quite aware that "new anti-Semitism" is usually defined as a motivational shift within anti-Semitism. I've provided evidence documenting an alternate usage, however, and I've also noted a flaw in the logic of the introduction. I've provided a source for the first point, while the second is not a matter of research as such. Your suggestion that I "find good sources" seems to miss the point entirely. CJCurrie 00:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

How can it miss the point? You appear not to have read any of the source material on the new anti-Semitism, yet you want to edit the page, based on no knowledge, just your own opinions. That's not good enough. Please find some decent sources (not The Australian), and come to the talk page with them and with the points you want to make. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Rest assured that it pains me to use a Murdoch paper as source material, but the fact remains that The Australian is a "quality" journal (perhaps the only one of its type in his empire). In any case, my comments on the logical flow of the introduction are unrelated to sources. I've said numerous times that the introduction to article uses two definitions of "new anti-Semitism". I'm still awaiting your response, and I would reiterate my request that you maintain a level of decorum. CJCurrie 01:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Query

CJ, what does edit mean?

It is argued these new forms should be distinguished from the old-style right-wing and Islamist anti-Semitism, which is motivated by religion, racism, racial theory or nationalism. The term 'new anti-Semitism' has also been used, however, to refer to the resurgence of such historical anti-Semitic beliefs or to characterise modern anti-Semitism as a development or "mutation" of old-style anti-Semitism.

Isn't it contradictory? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• (i) I didn't write that particular edit.
• (ii) It's only contradictory if you believe the term cannot have two meanings.

Read it. It's bad writing. Why would you revert to that? I'm getting the impression that your only concern is that the intro be anti-Israeli or anti-Zionist, and to hell with sources and decent writing. Please show me I'm wrong, because that would be deeply depressing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the cited passage is weak on style, but my understanding is that you were only asking me if it was contradictory. I'd be quite happy to clean it up, if that's your concern. I see you haven't commented on my response.

I can assure you that my concern is not that the intro be anti-Israeli or anti-Zionist, and I'm curious as to how you've reached this hypothesis. CJCurrie 01:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

"They claim that those who ... argue that pro-Israel groups have significant influence over US Middle East policy are very likely to be labelled as anti-Semites." Who are "they"? This sounds very like the claim that anti-Semites do make. You're also trying to defend the left again by saying NSA is "usually" used in this way — but not always, though the only counter-example you've cited so far is The Australian.

"They claim that those who ... argue that pro-Israel groups have significant influence over US Middle East policy are very likely to be labelled as anti-Semites." Who are "they"? This sounds very like the claim that anti-Semites do make. You're also trying to defend the left again by saying NSA is "usually" used in this way — but not always, though the only counter-example you've cited so far is The Australian.

I didn't write that section either. As it happens, though, there's a concrete answer: "they" refers to "some academics and commentators". This would be pretty flimsy on its own, I grant, but a source was provided: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html ("new anti-Semitism" is specifically referenced). CJCurrie 02:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Look, you've been arguing these points for weeks. You've had time to read the literature by now. It isn't fair to engage in this disruption without having done the reading. I mean no disrespect by saying that, but please see how frustrating this is. I don't turn up at, say, New Testament (about which I know practically nothing) and start reverting because I don't like what it says. If I've read almost nothing about it, it would be disruptive of me to turn up there and revert, revert, revert to my preferred intro. But that's what happening here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Look, you've been arguing these points for weeks.

My first edit in the current discussion occurred four days ago. Are you confusing me with someone else?

It isn't fair to engage in this disruption without having done the reading.

Look over the page history; I've been involved in these discussions before. More to the point at issue, I'm not taking issue with the general definition of "new anti-Semitism", and I'm not questioning the primary thrust of the article. I'm questioning the exclusivity of the standard definition, and I'm drawing attention to an apparent logical flaw. I don't need to read "x" number of sources on the new anti-Semitism to raise these concerns, and, with respect, I would appreciate a more direct response.

I'll pose the question directly: do you not see a contradiction between the first two paragraphs? CJCurrie 01:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• (iii) You left out the sentence which reads "In modern discourse, the term is usually used to describe ..." before the first sentence. CJCurrie 00:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

You're being disruptive again. Find sources for what you want to say, and write more carefully, please. The intro, in particular, has to be well written. Please bring your sources and edits to talk, and don't revert to contradictory nonsense. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

SV,

Your last response was extremely uncivil. I have explained the rationale for my changes several times, as well as explaining why I find the current introduction unsuitable for the article. Your only response has been to call for sources, even when this is entirely beside the point of my objections. I have made an effort to keep this discussion civil, and would request that you do the same. CJCurrie 01:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I'll note that points (i), (iii) and (iv) from my original objections have not yet been answered. CJCurrie 01:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Please just find sources. This is a well-sourced article, and it'll be better sourced still because you have requested more of them. Therefore, you must find equally good counter sources. Then it'll be a great article. It won't be a good article if you start adding your own opinions or those of one reporter at The Australian. Any edit that is challenged must be sourced, and the burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to make the edit. See V and RS. As for the photo cutline, it is pure original research and as such is completely unacceptable. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

As long as we're talking about sources, what source is there for the following?

The term new anti-Semitism refers to the contemporary international resurgence of anti-Jewish incidents and attacks on Jewish symbols, as well as the acceptance of anti-Semitic beliefs and their expression in public discourse.

This seems to confuse "new anti-Semitism" with modern or contemporary anti-Semitism. CJCurrie 01:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what "modern anti-Semitism" is. This is about "new anti-Semitism"; the old right-wing form is the other form of it that's routinely referred to in the literature, as the intro explains. Anything you want a source for, list it here, and I'll find one. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll try again ...

As long as we're talking about sources, what source is there for the following:

The term new anti-Semitism refers to the contemporary international resurgence of anti-Jewish incidents and attacks on Jewish symbols, as well as the acceptance of anti-Semitic beliefs and their expression in public discourse.

This seems to conflate the "new anti-Semitism" with all contemporary occurrences of anti-Semitism. CJCurrie 01:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Make a note here of all the points you feel still need sources, and I'll find some and add them to the page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's stay on topic: do you believe the introductory paragraph conflates the "new anti-Semitism" with all contemporary occurrences of anti-Semitism, or not? If not, why not? CJCurrie 04:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I mean no disrespect, but this is starting to feel like trolling. This isn't Usenet where people swap their personal opinions. This is the talk page of an article that must be source-based. Therefore, we discuss what the sources say, who the good ones are, how we can best use them, which points on the page still need sources. And above all, we read the sources ourselves so that we know how to edit the page. What I think about the international resurgence of anti-Semitism is irrelevant. If you want me to find sources, leave a list here, and I'll do that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for that first remark, which was unfair. I'm feeling frustrated and shouldn't take it out on you. I think I'll stop editing this page for the evening. Sorry again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for withdrawing the remark.

My response: I've raised an objection to the logical flow of the introductory paragraphs, and have solicited a response from you several times. I'm not soliciting your opinion; I'm asking you to address an apparent discontinuity in the argument. I've also requested a source for the first paragraph on more than one occasion. You have not responded to any of these requests. I have no intention of providing a list of unsourced assertions; the first paragraph is the only section that I wish to focus on for the time being.

Perhaps I can best explain the character of my objection in this matter:

(i) Some published sources have identified the "old" motivations for anti-Semitism as contributing to the current increase in international anti-Semitic activity. A recent European Union report (cited in the Jerusalem Post article up the page) is a prominent example, and I believe it to be a sufficient example for our purposes.

(ii) If the "old" motivations of anti-Semitism are contributing to the current increase in anti-Semitic activities, then it is not correct to identify the "new anti-Semitism" as bearing sole responsibility for this increase.

(iii) Therefore, the introductory paragraph is not correct, unless the term "new anti-Semitism" is defined in a more comprehensive manner than is usually the case.

I would request that you address my concerns.

Please note that I did not intend for this discussion to become a personal conflict. I have great respect for the work you have done elsewhere on Wikipedia (most notably on the Lyndon Larouche page), and I'm somewhat puzzled as to why we cannot seem to overcome this particular impasse. CJCurrie 04:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Please note also that I was very close to adding a "Disputed" tag to the article a short time ago. I've refrained from doing this in the hope that we can reach a mutually agreeable choice of wording.

I would invite other Wikipedians to contribute to this discussion. CJCurrie 04:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: pecher's point on "sourced" statements in the opening

By Pecher's argument it would be legitimate to write the following, without any qualification, in the opening of the New Anti-Semitism article because it is sourced:

The New Anti-Semitism is a myth[2]

Sourcing a POV does not make it NPOV. I have no problem including the viewpoint that the new Anti-Semitism is a left wing phenomemon as long as we make clear that that is a POV and not an objective fact. The version that several editors are insisting upon violates NPOV in several ways 1) it implies that the new Anti-Semitism is a fact b) it implies that elements of the left are anti-Semitic because they are anti-Zionist (see begging the question). Let's avoid refering to opinions as objective facts, ok?Homey 22:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Homey, please restore the part of the intro you've made invisible, because you've decimated it and made it senseless. The new anti-Semitism is associated with the left by everyone who has written about it substantially. Who associates it with anything else? Now, if you want to say, "according to ..." that's fair enough (so long as it's accurate, and doesn't give the impression that only a minority do), but to remove it entirely is pointless, and leaves the intro making no sense. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Well I was trying to come up with a formulation that would attribute the viewpoint but individuals kept reverting it to the status quo ante bellum rather than assist in coming up with NPOV attributive language. So in lieu of any willingness to compromise it's better, I think, to remove the contested passage altogether until a solution can be met. Now if pecher etc agree to stop reverting and actually help to come up with language that is acceptable to everyone we can proceed. If editors continue to refuse to actually deliberate and try to reach a solution perhaps it would be best to lock down the article and get a mediator in here. I know there's always a tendency to see one's own view as universal, objective and correct. Perhaps editors who are proponents of the new anti-Semitism theory can agree to put that tendency aside as per our NPOV policy?

SV, if you could suggest language that attributes the view in question rather than suggests it's an objective fact I think that would go a long way towards resolving this and would discourage pecher et al from rejecting any attempt at compromise? Homey 23:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I think someone did come up with a good compromise, Homey, which was CJCurrie's: "The new anti-Semitism is associated with elements of the Left that oppose Zionism and the existence of the state of Israel as a Jewish homeland." This is unarguably correct. But in any event, the intro can't stay as it is, because it makes no sense now. I can't restore it, because I've already reverted three times. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that it does not say who makes the association. In fact, simply saying one is "associated" with something implies that the association is an objective fact rather than an accusation. For instance "Freemasons are associated with a conspiracy to take over the world" vs "Some right wing conspiracy theorists accuse Freemasons of plotting to take over the world."Homey 23:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I think someone did come up with a good compromise, Homey, which was CJCurrie's: "The new anti-Semitism is associated with elements of the Left that oppose Zionism and the existence of the state of Israel as a Jewish homeland." This is unarguably correct. But in any event, the intro can't stay as it is, because it makes no sense now. I can't restore it, because I've already reverted three times. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that it does not say who makes the association. In fact, simply saying one is "associated" with something implies that the association is an objective fact rather than an accusation. For instance "Freemasons are associated with a conspiracy to take over the world" vs "Some right wing conspiracy theorists accuse Freemasons of plotting to take over the world."Homey 23:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Everyone who has written a book or paper about the new anti-Semitism (that I'm aware of) associates it with the Left. 23:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Every book or paper that makes the association that I'm aware of is written by a person or group who is sympathetic to Zionism. Should we not state that as well? I guess you can argue that those who contest the term are also "associating" it with the left despite the fact that they are disputing the association.

In any case, you're dancing around my point. What is your objection to using the word "accusation". Is it false or inaccurate? Do you not see why "associated with" can be misleading? Homey

How about: "Elements of the Left that oppose Zionism and the existence of the state of Israel as a Jewish homeland are subject to accusations that they are proponents of "the new anti-Semitism". Those who make this accusation include B'nai Brith, Alan Dershowitz, Jonathan Sacks, Warren Kinsella and others who are associated either with support of the state of Israel or with conservative causes. Conversely, X and Y argue that the application of the term "new anti-Semitism" is an attempt to discredit critics of Israel through guilt by association by conflating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism despite the fact that many left-wing anti-Zionists are opponents of anti-Semitism."Homey 23:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

No, that's well poisoning. It's not only people associated witih conservative causes. Homey, please read the literature. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

"No, that's well poisoning. It's not only people associated witih conservative causes."

It's those who are either supporters of Zionism or supporters of conservative causes. I'm fine with just limiting it to supporters of Zionism. Can you cite me an example of a proponent of the term who is neither a Zionist nor a conservative?

And I think a stronger example of poisioning the well is saying the New Anti-Semitism is "associated with" some elements of the Left rather than saying that some on the left are accused of (the new) anti-Semitism by some supporters of Israel. Homey 23:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

That's an odd question and it depends what you mean by "Zionist". Are you saying that people who support the State of Israel as a Jewish homeland are to be marked in some way as such before being used as sources? Because that in itself plays right into the point the intro is making (or made before you deleted it): that the new anti-Semitism is associated with those on the Left who oppose the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish homeland. So for us to "mark" our sources as split into though who do and those who don't would be ... unencyclopedic is the best thing I can say about it. And what happens if we don't know whether a source does or not?

All that matters about a source surely is that they've written about it seriously i.e. in some depth. I suppose I'm also worried about the question because it indicates you haven't read the literature.

I can offer you Nick Cohen of the Observer, though I don't have a cite to hand because not all his material is online. He's just written a book about how to save the Left (not published and I don't have the title), and has launched a new "beyond socialism" manifesto for the Left. I'm not aware that he's ever said he does or doesn't support Israel as a Jewish homeland, though I know he's a supporter of the Palestinians, but is worried about the resurgence of anti-Semitism among the Left. Shalom Lappin of King's College, London and supporter of the Israeli peace movement. There are so many others, I'm finding myself reluctant to continue, because this is almost an offensive question. For most of the writers I'm looking at on my shelves, I've no idea whether they're "Zionists" or not, because so many of them have never said and you can't easily tell from the writing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I want to clarify at this stage that my "associated with elements of the Left" edit was provisional, and was made in the expectation that further changes would follow. CJCurrie 23:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

This is the version that I endorsed at the beginning of the discussion: The term first came into general use in the early 1970s. In contemporary discourse, it is often used to identify a form of anti-Semitism which is perceived to differ from earlier forms of anti-Semitism in its rhetoric, professed purpose, and position on the political spectrum. The "old" anti-Semitism is usually associated with the Right, and is motivated by racial theory, religion, and nationalism. The term "new anti-Semitism" is more frequently associated with the Left, and opposition to Zionism and the existence of the state of Israel as a Jewish homeland. [1] [2] [3] [4] This usage of the term is controversial, and critics contend that it serves to equate legitimate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism.

I would now suggest that "frequently associated with the Left, and opposition to" should be replaced with "frequently directed toward elements of the Left that oppose". "Toward" could perhaps be replaced with "against". I also have doubts about the "general use" claim, as noted below. It may not be necessary to explain the sources in detail in the introductory paragraph. I'm open to other adjustments. CJCurrie 23:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC) (updated: 00:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC))

Another comment on sources

According to the article, the term "new anti-Semitism" first came into general use in the early 1970s. The only source provided for this assertion is Arnold Forster's "The New Anti-Semitism" (which was actually co-written with Benjamin Epstein, but never mind ...)

It may be worth noting that (i) this book is a polemical piece, (ii) its publisher, the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, cannot be described as a neutral party on the issue of whether or not a "new anti-Semitism" exists, (iii) there is no evidence that this book propelled the term into "general use". CJCurrie 23:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

It was a book title. The publisher is unlikely to have used as a book title something that didn't exist and that no one would understand. That is therefore an indication that the term was in use in the 70s. Please stop trying to downplay as sources those who support Israel. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Please stop speculating as to my motivations.

As it happens, I have a copy of the original hardcover version in front of me right now. The word "ANTI-SEMITISM" is written in red diagonal bold text across the cover; the word "new" appears in much smaller text at the top, and is the same colour as the backdrop. I had to strain my eyes to even see it the first time.

I would hazard a guess that the authors were creating a neologism. I have no proof of this, of course, but neither have you demonstrated proof that the term was in use in the '70s. CJCurrie 23:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not speculating as to your motives. You seem not to like the term personally and want to disassociate it from the left, which you've been trying to do since February, posting 35 posts to this talk page saying exactly the same thing. I keep asking for sources showing that those who've studied the new anti-Semitism associate it with anyone else, but you can't produce any (unless you want to add that it's associated with Islamism too, in which case I can find you sources).

You say above that the ADL shouldn't be used as a source, though you don't say why, but presumably because it supports Israel. I'm therefore not speculating when I say you are downplaying sources because of their support for Israel, or was there some other reason you opposed the ADL as a source?

All I'm asking is that people put aside their personal views and concentrate on what is being written about the new anti-Semitism by those who study it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not speculating as to your motives. You seem not to like the term personally and want to disassociate it from the left

I was just talking to someone about the proper meaning of "irony", the other day ... CJCurrie 00:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

which you've been trying to do since February

This is the second time you've made this assertion. It was incorrect the first name, and remains incorrect now. I contributed to a separate discussion about the "new anti-Semitism" over a year ago, but my first post in the current discussion was made five days ago, and I was offline for one of those days. I'm puzzled as to whom you could be confusing me with. CJCurrie 00:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

You say above that the ADL shouldn't be used as a source

No, I'm saying we shouldn't pretend it's a neutral source. CJCurrie 00:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

All I'm asking is that people put aside their personal views and concentrate on what is being written about the new anti-Semitism by those who study it.

It occurred to me late last night that there's a hidden fallacy in this request. Consider this:

(i) The term "new anti-Semitism" is itself contentious.

(ii) Most authors who oppose the term reference it only for purposes of criticism.

(iii) Therefore, most authors who study the "new anti-Semitism" in detail will do so from a standpoint which supports and upholds usage of the term.

(iv) Therefore, most published works which address the "new anti-Semitism" in detail will support and uphold usage of the term.

(v) This position represents only one side of the argument.

(vi) Therefore, concentrating on "what is being written about the new anti-Semitism by those who study it" will leave a distorted view of the discussion (counter-intuitive though that may seem on first blush).

CJCurrie 00:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

CJC, all serious studies of the Holocaust agree that it happened. That doesn't mean we regard those studies as too biased in that direction for us to use. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point. All serious studies of the Holocaust agree that it happened. All serious studies of anti-Semitism agree that it exists. There is no such consensus for "new anti-Semitism". CJCurrie 22:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, everyone agrees that this phenomenon is happening as well. The difference here is that some people want it to be considered a legitimate activity, and object to it being described as "anti-Semitism". They don't claim it isn't happening, though. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Some people want what to be considered a legitimate activity? Criticizing Israel or firebombing synagogues? (I'm not being facetious, I'm just not sure what Jayjg is asserting here). Homey 20:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Disputed tag

There is clearly an ongoing dispute about the introduction to this article and its sources, accompanied by quasi-edit warring. Currie and myself have made every effort to provide numerous reliable sources for our edits. This tag was reverted once already. There is clearly an ongoing dispute. btw I am not attempting to engage in 'hit and run tagging', as was suggested in the revert description. TreveX^talk 23:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed sentence "Controversy regarding new anti-semitism is..."

I have removed the following sentence because it is predicated in the assumption that all criticism of Israel is anti-semitic. This has already been discussed above but no source or defence for this sentence has been forthcoming.

Controversy regarding new anti-Semitism centers on whether opposition to the state of Israel promotes anti-Semitism only as a symptom or by-product, or whether it is more closely linked to, and supported by, more general anti-Semitic beliefs.

TreveX^talk 23:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Disgraceful

Some of the editors on this page should be ashamed. You've destroyed the intro, and now your well-poisoning (and completely inaccurate) claims don't even match the sources given. Or do you intend to start deleting reliable sources too? I can't edit because I'd revert 3RR otherwise, and you almost certainly have CJC, because you were the one who was reverting against me: 3RR covers any undoing of any editor's work, in whole or in part. This is just bad editing, pure and simple, regardless of POV. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree: this article now is a mess, intentionally or not. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

ʜ==Status of term== Posted to SV's talk page and copied here:

I am simply saying that we should be clear to distinguish between subjectivity and objectivity. "New anti-Semitism" is not an agreed upon fact. It is a theory that originates with one political point of view and it is predominantly that point of view that argues the term is valid. I think that when we are speaking of contestable subjects we are remiss if we pretend that a source is "objective" rather than reflecting one or another of the sides of the dispute. It is important to distinguish between polemics and objective work. That doesn't mean we can't use polemics as sources but we can't use a source as a cover for the fact that an assertion is a POV and not an objective fact.

I don't know if every single writer who asserts there is a new Anti Semitism is a "Zionist" per se. However, I think it's valid to say that view that there is a new Anti-Semitism originates with and is predominantly supported by Zionists just as it's fair to say that those who argue there were WMDs in Iraq are predominantly supporters of the Iraq war.

My point isn't so much that "New Anti-Semitism" is a Zionist phrase as it is that it is not an objective fact and should not be treated as such by the article. It is a POV, it is contestable, and should be treated as such. I would make the same arguments if an article on Zionism is racism stated "Zionism is associated with racism", gave a few sources and failed to mention that those sources are all anti-Zionist and that "Zionism is racism" is POV and not a fact and that it is an assertion put forward predominantly by opponents of the state of Israel's right to exist.

My problem is not with the use of "Zionist sources" or "anti-Zionist sources", it's with using a POV source to suggest that an assertion is a fact and NPOV rather than a POV opinion.

I'm a bit suprised that you are disputing that using a term like "associated with" is misleading in the case of new-anti Semitism and "the Left" and does not suggest that the accusation that elements of the Left are anti-Semtic is valid. The use of it in the article is almost a literal example of guilt by association. Homey 01:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

There's no such thing as objectivity. According to lots of people, there's no such thing as anti-Semitism, period, but we don't start that article by qualifying it as only a term used by such-and-such.

NPOV says we describe majority and significant-minority published opinion; stress on "published." That's why I asked how much of the literature you've read. The term is very far from being used by only one point of view. You can't edit in your own opinions to articles. You can only repeat what the literature says, and it very firmly, without exception that I can find, agrees that the new anti-Semitism is a real phenomenon, and associates it with the Left. These are books and articles written by people with many different POVs, largely academics and well-known journalists.

The intro you put up is factually inaccurate and doesn't even reflect the sources after the sentences. That's why I'm surprised.

Rather than us exchanging personal views, which are irrelevant, can you say how much of the literature you'd read, and which papers/books you're relying on, and then start quoting your sources, please? If we stick very closely to what reputable sources are saying and give references with all our edits from now on, it will make for a more intelligent article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Homey, could you decide whether to reply here or on our talk pages, so I don't have to copy to both? Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The intro you put up is factually inaccurate

This is from the intro you support: "The new 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."

SV, you have not replied to my comments that "associated with" is misleading since it implies that "the Left" is guilty of anti-Semitism.

No, it doesn't, just as not everyone on the Right was an old ant-Semite. But the old anti-Semitism is associated with the Right, just as the new is with the Left. That is a fact from the literature. That is the association that people who write about this make. Please produce a paper or book that says otherwise. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The sentence is also factually inaccurate as it makes a blanket statement that "the Left" opposes Zionism, when many leftists actually support or are Zionists and that "the Left" as a whole opposes the state of Israel as a Jewish homeland when, in fact, many leftists supported Israel from its inception.

Do you concede the inaccuracies I have pointed out? Will you correct them?Homey 01:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, then perhaps it could say: "The new anti-Semitism is associated with the Left, and in particular elements of the Left opposed to Zionism and to the existence of the state of Israel as a Jewish homeland." Would that be better for you? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The point isn't that all leftists oppose Israel or oppose Zionism. But it would be incomplete to not notice that it certain quadrants of the political spectrum hold this view and perpetuate the "new Anti-Semitism." Even leftists such as Alan Derschowitz claims this. That is not to say that they are alone in anti-Semitism, but the leftward tilt of the "new anti-Semitism" is what makes it "new." It has it's roots in the aggressive military posture of Israel as well as fundamental leftist concerns as economic disparity and the Cold War roots of U.S. (right, supports Israel) vs. USSR (left, opposes Israel). It is undeniably leftist and we shouldn't shy away from it but describe in neutral and factual terms.--Tbeatty 01:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions

To SV: My point about the problem with "associated" stands. The term is misleading and use of it reads like an attempt to condemn by association.

Do you have any problem with: "The concept is directed largely at those elements of "the Left" that oppose Zionism and the existence of the state of Israel as a Jewish homeland."

Hmmm ... "the concept is directed at" sounds as though it doesn't really exist. The point of that sentence is that it emanates from the Left, not the Right, and that is one of its distinguishing features. I'll try to think of different wording. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I still think "accused of" is objectively correct and NPOV. What about "attributed to"? (I'm not sure about that one, actually)Homey 02:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

To tbeaty: "The point isn't that all leftists oppose Israel or oppose Zionism."

Then the article shouldn't say that they do.

"certain quadrants of the political spectrum hold this view and perpetuate the "new Anti-Semitism."

You are accepting as fact the POV that opposing Zionism or the existence of the state of Israel is anti-Semitic. I understand why you hold that view but it is not NPOV.

"Even leftists such as Alan Derschowitz claims this."

I don't think any serious peson would say Alan Dershowitz is a "leftist" today. Certainly no "leftist" would say that. Does Dershowitz even claim this anymore?

"It has it's roots in the aggressive military posture of Israel as well as fundamental leftist concerns as economic disparity and the Cold War roots of U.S. (right, supports Israel) vs. USSR (left, opposes Israel)."

Actually, the Soviet Union recognized Israel before the US did. Also, while the US had an arms embargo against the Yishuv and then Israel throughout 1948 and afterwards the USSR had Czechoslovakia supply Israel with arms. Indeed, without the Soviet Union, it's quite possible Israel would have been wiped out in 1948.

I just say this to point out that you shouldn't allow your ideological assumptions to interfere with reality. In fact, the US goverment remained cool to Israel until 1967 (remember the Suez Crisis?) while many on the left saw Israel with its Labour Zionism and kibbutzes as a socialist role model until at least 1977 (though things started to change in 1967 Homey 02:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

3RR

I want to clarify that I was careful not to violate the 3RR, and that I'm not impressed with the outburst at the top of the "Disgraceful" section. CJCurrie 01:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how you couldn't have violated it, given you were reverting against me, and I would violate it if I continued editing. A "revert" is undoing any editor's work, not just reverting to an earlier version of a page. See WP:3RR. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

There were three occasions (20:20, 20:27 and 22:46) in which I added minor changes that I regarded as non-contentious, in an effort to create mutually acceptable wording. I also removed a superfluous sentence at 23:58, and corrected a spelling error at 23:05. I did not consider these changes to be "undoing" anyone's work, and I'll note that SlimVirgin endorsed the second minor change not long ago. My interpretation is that none of these changes were "reverts" in the technical sense; if I'm mistaken, please correct me and I'll avoid the error in future. CJCurrie 01:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

But now you keep undoing the new header! A revert for the purposes of 3RR is undoing any other editor's work on a page. If you do that more than three times in 24 hours, even if you're making different edits each time, and whether or not the undoing is in whole or in part, you can be blocked. Do not remove this header again. This section is not about the contents of the article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

But now you keep undoing the new header!

Er ... yes, and I gave my reasons each time. Your point is unclear. CJCurrie 01:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

My point was that editing a page with you is an unpleasant experience, because you don't write properly, don't use sources properly, revert war, insist on having the last word, don't know the subject matter, don't seem to want to know it, post endlessly to talk, don't know what 3RR means even though you're an admin, and keep returning to tweak your own posts causing lots of edit conflicts. Is my point clearer now? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe that repeated instances of uncivil behaviour can be grounds for blocking as well. CJCurrie 01:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

A revert for the purposes of 3RR is undoing any other editor's work on a page. If you do that more than three times in 24 hours, even if you're making different edits each time, and whether or not the undoing is in whole or in part, you can be blocked.

I believe "undoing any other editor's work on a page" may be open to some interpretation. I've taken a more liberal interpretation of this phrase in the past, as have most of my interlocutors. If you insist on a narrow definition, I'll bear that in mind for our future discussions. I did not consciously violate the 3RR, one way or the other.

I'm familiar with the provisions for blocking, and I also know that this isn't always the "first resort" punishment. I purposely refrained from enforcing the blocking provision some time ago, when there was some confusion as to interpretation. CJCurrie 01:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

This section is not about the contents of the article.

Not since you've added the 3RR header, no. It was originally called "Disgraceful", if memory serves. CJCurrie 01:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

CJC, when you keep returning to edit your talk-page comments, [3] it means that people trying either to reply to you or to someone else keep getting edit conflicts. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

If I known that you were trying to respond to me at that very moment, I would have waited. I'm quite familiar with edit conflicts; I received one not long after you wrote the above notice. CJCurrie 01:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

If this reverting continues, I'm going to report any violations. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

As I said: I did not consciously violate the 3RR, and I'll abide by a narrow definition in our future discussions if such is your wish. I don't believe there's anything more to discuss here. CJCurrie 01:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't abide by a broad or narrow definition. Just abide by what it says on the policy page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

If such is your position, perhaps you could tell me why it says "undoing" rather than "changing". CJCurrie 01:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean now. A revert is undoing another editor's work, not just reverting to a previous version. I think that's the third time I've written that on this page. If you want to change policy, do it on that talk page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

My point is that "undoing another author's work" is not identical to "changing another author's work". CJCurrie 02:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

No one said it was! Stop going on. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Reverting

Homey, I've left a note on your talk page, but in case you don't see it, every time you delete material (or re-add your own), you're reverting, even if you also add something else. That is, it doesn't have to be an actual revert, or be the same material every time: complex, partial reverts are reverts too. I haven't counted edits, but I'm pretty sure both you and CJC have violated 3RR by now, given the amount of deleting that's gone on. If you haven't, you're on the verge of it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Homey, you've just done it again, not only restoring your material, but an outdated version of it, so that you've restored the wrong ref system again. If Chesler etc are there only as a footnote, Klug can be footnoted too. I don't want to report anyone for 3RR, but I'm going to if you don't stop. I've held off all day so as not to violate it, yet the two of you plough on as though the policy doesn't exist. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Edit to sentence "Critics of the concept contend that..."

I have added the Mearsheimer, LRB article "The Israel Lobby" as a source to the following sentence. This now has two sources:

Critics of the concept contend that surging hostility towards Zonism [sic] and the State of Israel does not necessarily translate into hostility towards the Jews.

I have also changed the wording slightly as I feel this better represents the perspective of the critics:

Critics of the concept contend that criticism of Zionism and Israel are not necessarily anti-semitic and that allegations of anti-semitism are sometimes used to silence debate.

To avoid edit warring I hope we can agree to discuss changes to this sentence or its references here. TreveX^talk 10:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

TreveX, if you wanted to avoid edit warring and discuss changes here, why didn't you do that before adding the sentence? As it stands, it's misleading: "Critics of the concept contend that criticism of Zionism and Israel are not necessarily anti-semitic and that allegations of anti-semitism are sometimes used to silence debate." No one has said that criticism of Israel is necessarily anti-Semitic, so you're setting up a straw man, and the article you linked to doesn't say it either. I'm therefore going to remove that part of the sentence. The sentence that was there earlier was actually better written. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please comment on the compromise proposed below:

Okay, how about: Critics of the concept contend that allegations of "new anti-semitism" are used to stifle legitimate criticism and debate on Israel or Zionism.? This position is basically what is outlined in the Mearsheimer article. TreveX^talk 11:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for sentence on other perspectives on "new anti-semitism"

Hello everyone. I wondered whether we could include a mention of other perspectives on new anti-semitism, specifically that it is a mutation of old-style anti-semitism; also that old-style (right wing) anti-semitism continues. This could be done with the following sentence:

The term 'new anti-Semitism' has also been used, however, to refer to the resurgence of historical right-wing anti-Semitic beliefs or to characterise modern anti-Semitism as a development or "mutation" of old-style anti-Semitism.

Jonathan Sacks, the UK's Chief Rabbi, has characterised it in this way. The reference as follows:

See interview question - "Is contemporary European anti-Semitism a new strain or old wine in a new bottle?" in Jonathan Sacks interview, Hadassa Magazine, August/September 2003 Vol. 85 No.1, By Charley J. Levine

Also, here are some references supporting the continuation of old-style anti-semitism:

"Several trends continued to serve as a driving force behind the numbers in 2005. These included: Public activity by organized neo-Nazi and other hate groups;" Annual ADL Audit: Anti-Semitic Incidents Decline in 2005 but Levels Still Of Concern In U.S, Anti-Defamation League, 2005

Book review: Group-Targeted Misanthropy and Anti-Semitism in Germany, Manfred Gerstenfeld on Deutsche Zustände by Wilhelm Heitmeyer, Jewish Political Studies Review 18:1-2 (Spring 2006)

I hope you agree that the sources are reliable. Can I go ahead and include this? TreveX^talk 11:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The second two sources don't seem to be about new anti-Semitism at all. I'll take a look at the first. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Your proposed edit has two parts: (1) The term 'new anti-Semitism' has also been used, however, to refer to the resurgence of historical right-wing anti-Semitic beliefs, and (2) or to characterise modern anti-Semitism as a development or "mutation" of old-style anti-Semitism.

Regarding (1), which one is your source for that?

Regarding (2), you seem to be using Sacks. But you're trying to put words in his mouth. By calling it a "mutation," he is saying it's something new. See below. He is saying it's NOT the "third mutation [which] began in 1879, when the political, racial concept of anti-Semitism was forged." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Q. Is contemporary European anti-Semitism a new strain or old wine in a new bottle?

A. It is a new mutation. We are entirely wrong to see anti-Semitism as an ideology. It is rather a series of contradictions. Any mutation of this virus of anti-Semitism is a major event in world history. By my calculation there have only been three mutations in 2,000 years. One came with the birth of Christianity�. Greeks and Romans didn�t like Jews before Christianity just because they didn�t like most foreigners; it wasn�t personal. But with Christianity it became very personal, because it was directed specifically against Jews who, as they saw it, rejected their own messiah. Mutation two took place around the first Crusade in 1096 when Christian hatred of Jews turned demonic. That�s when we first saw myths like blood libel, alleged poisoning of wells, Jews held responsible for all the evil in the world. The third mutation began in 1879, when the political, racial concept of anti-Semitism was forged.

Q. And today?

A. We are now living through the fourth mutation. Today�s anti-Semitism has three components: The first is anti-Zionism, the notion that Jews alone have no right to a nation of their own, a place in which to govern themselves. No. 2�all Jews are Zionists and therefore legitimate targets like Wall Street Journal journalist Daniel Pearl. No. 3, Israel and the Jewish people are responsible for all the troubles in the world, from AIDS to globalization. Put those three propositions together and you have the new anti-Semitism. I am concerned that, unlike in Britain, tolerance has not been the default option in Europe for the past few centuries.

Your Heitmeyer source mentions the new anti-Semitism in passing, but I can't see anything in it that would support your edit. Which part do you think does? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, I can't see anything in the ADL source that supports it either. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, you seem to think, by your use of the word "however" that you're contradicting something else. Of course the new anti-Semitism has evolved out of every other form of it; it didn't land from Mars. It is a "mutation," as Sacks put it, but qua mutation, it is a different phenomenon. Of course that mutation involves a resurgence of some of the old vocabulary and imagery of the old anti-Semitism; read the article for examples. But that doesn't mean it's the same thing; doesn't mean it comes from the Right; doesn't mean it doesn't come from the Left. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

Okay. I propose the following sentence change:

The term 'new anti-Semitism' has also been used to refer characterise modern anti-Semitism as a development or "mutation" of old-style anti-Semitism. Historical right-wing anti-Semitic prejudice, such as neo-Nazism, continues to be prominent.

Sacks says "We are now living through the fourth mutation. Today's anti-semitism..." and then goes into more detail, and then says "Put those three propositions together and you have the new anti-Semitism". This means that Sacks is saying that the new anti-semitism is a "mutation" of old anti-semitism.

The review of Heitmeyer supports the idea of old-style anti-semitism prevailing alongside the "new":

historian Susanne Urban mentioned that anti-Semitism in Germany includes certain varieties: pre-Auschwitz anti-Semitism, neo-Nazi anti-Semitism, neoliberal anti-Semitism, leftist anti-Semitism, "anti-Semitism disguised by general reflexive 'criticism' of Israeli policies," and "anti-Semitism and, hence, anti-Zionism as part of the new German claim of having been victims in WW II

The ADL stuff talks about the right-wing too:

Several trends continued to serve as a driving force behind the numbers in 2005. These included: Public activity by organized neo-Nazi and other hate groups;

I have changed the sentence to indicate that I can't find a source characterising new antisemitism (NAS) as a resurgence of the old right wing stuff but we could still use the same sources to indicate that right-wing anti-semitism exists. Is this okay now? TreveX^talk 12:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

You can add in the body of the article that the old anti-Semitism still exists, but not in the intro, because no one has said it doesn't exist and this article isn't about it.

As for the rest (emphasis added): "The term 'new anti-Semitism' has also been used, however, to refer characterise [sic] modern anti-Semitism as a development or "mutation" of old-style anti-Semitism," I don't know what you mean by "also" and "however." What Sacks wrote is consistent with what the text already says, so "also" is redundant and "however" is wrong. He also didn't talk about one form of "old-style anti-Semitism" (nor did he use that term, as I recall). He talked about four mutations of anti-Semitism, the new anti-Semitism being the fourth. But do you know what the word "mutation" means? It doesn't mean it's an old thing. It means it's a new thing, though of course not a new thing that came from nowhere (what new things do?). That's why he uses that word. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

References to the continuation of old anti-semitism are important to the intro because they give the concept of NAS context and clarity. Otherwise, you may have people reading this and thinking that the old anti-semitism has gone away. Nevertheless I am still glad that you accept the validity of what I'm saying, if not where I think it shoudl be in the article.

Mutation means "the act or process of being altered or changed." Meaning that it is not specifically old or completely new either -- the new is grounded in the old. See also this article, which emphasises the debt of the new to the old:

The new anti-Semitism eagerly scavenges this arsenal of older images which, since the onset of modernity, have stereotyped the Jews as a dangerously mobile, rootless, abstract and transnational mafia uniquely tuned to exploit capitalise economy and culture.

The point is that the new anti-semitism can be partially viewed as an extension of the old. It is not completely new, as you appear to recognise.

Can you please not agree, as a compromise, to some sort of reference to old anti-semitism in the intro:

1. Its relationship to the new anti-semitism
2. Its continuation by the right (which we have both accepted and have sources for)

TreveX^talk 12:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I think this is dealt with sufficiently in the rest of the article. If you want to emphasize that right-wing anti-Semitism still exists, we could tweak the current sentence about it by adding "continues to be", as in: "The term ... is used to distinguish a form of anti-Semitism regarded as differing in its rhetoric ... from the old anti-Semitism, which continues to be associated with the Right and is motivated by racial theory, religion, or nationalism." Would that do it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Yet another proposal

I don't think that's clear. How about:

The term [...] is used to distinguish forms of anti-Semitism which are regarded as differing from the old anti-Semitism, which is associated with the Right and is motivated by racial theory, religion, or nationalism.

Then can we please have references to:

• • • The left wing nature of the new anti-semitism
    • The transfer from Christian to Muslim anti-semitism [4]
    • The transfer from religious to secular anti-semitism [5]
    • The debt owed by new anti-semitism to the old. The new-antisemitism continues to invoke imagery from historical anti-Semitism [sourced]. That some may interpret this as a mutation [sacks source]. Yes, I know that we disagree on Sacks, but we can qualify that in some way.

Also, could you please respond to my other suggestion in Edit to sentence "Critics of the concept contend that..."? TreveX^talk 13:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

TreveX, I think you make some good points above, but there's no hope of getting anything intelligent into this article while CJC and Homey are disrupting the editing. Therefore, I suggest we wait until they get bored, which I'm hoping they will soon, and then I can look for good sources to back up what you're saying. The intro does (or did when I last checked) stress that it's associated with the left, but of course that keeps being deleted or weakened. Your point about the transfer from religious to secular anti-Semitism is an interesting one; I'm not sure I've ever seen a source say it as explicitly as that, but I will look. Same with the transfer of Christian to Muslim anti-Semitism: I believe Bernard Lewis made a similar point, but it might be too complicated for the intro. And I agree with you that the new mutated out of the old, as Sacks said.

However, I don't believe there's any point in doing serious research with the page being attacked by people who don't want to do any reading. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you make some good points above, but there's no hope of getting anything intelligent into this article while CJC and Homey are disrupting the editing.

I'm going to request that you apologize for this comment. CJCurrie 23:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I won't apologize for it. If you go back to look at the article from a few days ago, before you turned up, and then look at it now, you'll see how little has changed. And yet look at the amount of energy and time has been put into reverting and commenting. It's bad editing by definition. As for the latest nonsense, which I believe you're not responsible for, about Foxman and Chesler, Homey's making it up as he goes along, and showing he hasn't read a single piece of the literature. Perhaps I should now go to Special Relativity and, because I don't know anything about it, add to the intro that it's a myth? It's very discouraging, and I'm not going to waste my time doing any serious research until it stops. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

When I look back on the article's introduction from a few days ago, I see much contentious and POV information. If little has changed now, this is because of the reversions by yourself and others.

And yet look at the amount of energy and time has been put into reverting and commenting. It's bad editing by definition.

Change is sometimes messy. I won't apologize for starting the latest round of discussions, as I believe such discussions are probably necessary to achieve improvement of the article page. I certainly don't believe that extended discussion constitutes "bad editing by definition", nor do I believe that bold editing constitutes "disruption".

I have tried to raise valid concerns about the introduction. The treatment I have received leads me to believe that my concerns not being taken seriously by some contributors. I've participated in several extended Wikipedia discussions; this is the first time that I've been subjected to abuse from contributors whom I believe should know better.

I will reiterate my request for an apology. CJCurrie 00:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, asking people how many books they've read on the new anti-semitism is irelevant. Just because someone has read a bunch of books on the "anti-semetism crisis" doesn't mean they can go around trying to invoke authority over everyone else. Everyone on this page is perfectly capable of doing good research. While you may believe that CJC and Homey are disrupting the editing, I put it to you that they have both made efforts to add to the article constructively using sources. We are at a complete impasse on this talk page, which is perhaps why they resorted to changing the article. Efforts to compromise have been met in some quarters with an intransigence I have never seen before on Wikipedia. SlimVirgin, instead of wholesale reversion, why can't you try and work through your individual disagreements sentence by sentence?

While I'm on a quasi-rant, the manner in which people have tried to argue against some changes which are logically rigourous and impecably-sourced is ridiculous and frustrating in the extreme. I am actually doing more research, but I'm not going to waste my time putting it up here and arguing round and round in circles. As for hoping CJC and Homey get bored, I personally hope they will stick around. TreveX^talk 01:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to assert that The New anti-Semitism is or isn't something, then you better have read the sources on it, otherwise you can't edit meaningfully, can you? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Critics

" Critics of the concept contend that surging hostility towards Zonism and the State of Israel does not necessarily translate into hostility towards the Jews.[6]"

Oh please, this is a completely disingenuous way of characterising criticism of the concept. Klug, for instance, is saying that anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are different phenomenon:

"Accordingly, anti-Zionism is one thing, anti-Semitism another. They are separate. To say they are separate is not to say that they are never connected. But they are independent variables that can be connected in different ways." and that confusing the two makes it more difficult to identify real anti-Semitism when it occurs (see his conclusion to the article). Please give me a quotation that approximates the paraphrasing you've put in the article?

Perhaps we should also cite the arguments of Tariq Ali:

"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."[6]

Let's also look at Clubb: "To say that criticism of Israel's treatment of Palestinians in the West Bank is the same as anti-Semitism is not only ridiculous but much the same as saying that criticism of the white regime's treatment of blacks and coloreds in apartheid South Africa was anti-white, or that criticism of 16th-century Spanish and British attacks on indigenous Indians in the Americas was anti-Spanish and anti-British, or that criticism of American destruction of Indian villages and killing of women and children as pioneers moved westward and settled Indian land was anti-American."[7]

And there's also Beaumont: "What they are talking about is the criticism in the media and political classes of Europe of the policies of Sharon. Israel's brutal response to the often equally reprehensible anti-Israeli Palestinian violence of the intifada has produced one of the most vigorous media critiques of Israel's policies in the European media in a generation. The reply to this criticism, say those most vocal in reporting the existence of the new anti-Semitism, particularly in the Israeli press, is devastating in its simplicity: criticise Israel, and you are an anti-Semite just as surely as if you were throwing paint at a synagogue in Paris.

It is at this point that the charges of the broad scope of the new anti-Semitism should be rejected for what they are: an attempt to deflect criticism from the actions of an Israeli government by declaring criticism of Israel out of bounds and invoking Europe's last great taboo - the fear of being declared an anti-Semite. For while the phenomenon of anti-Jewish sentiment and attacks in some quarters of the Islamic community in Europe is to be deplored, so too must be the effort to co-opt it as an alibi for Israel's behaviour and to use it to silence opposition to its policies."[8]

For the intro to be NPOV and balanced the crticisms of "New Anti-Semitism" have to be reflected in a genuine manner. What are the arguments being made above? 1) Anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism are different 2) the term "the new anti-Semitism" is being used to dismiss legitimate criticism of Zionism by stigmitizing criticism as anti-Semitic. These basic points, which are common to the articles I'm citing, are not at all reflected in the lead as it now stands. Instead the criticism of anti-Zionism is addressed in a dismissive, self-servign way that ignores the strongest elements of the argument. Homey 13:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

"...it serves to equate legitimate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism, and that it is sometimes used to silence debate."

That is clearly and unambiguously POV. Not that you might not be onto something, but you can do better than these weasel words. Sometimes means when? What debate?Timothy Usher 13:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know Timothy, ask the person who wrote that version (it wasn't me). Anyway, reading the citations I've quoted above can you comne up with an accurate and honest summary that can replace the completely self-serving attempt you've just reverted to?Homey 13:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, "self-serving"?Timothy Usher 14:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

That statement also implies that criticism of Israel is legitimate. Although this statement is sourced to Krug's article in The Nation, he actually says nothing of the kind. He acknowledges the exisitence of hostility towards Israel, but mainains that is does not necessarily translate into hostility towards Jews in general, so it's inappropriate to source the statement above to his work. In addition, I cannot find anything in Mearsheimer and Walt about silencing debate either. Pecher ^Talk 13:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is POV -- the point of view of those who criticise the concept of new anti-Semitism. However it is stated as an opinion (rather than fact) and is sourced. I have changed it back, with a qualification ("what they describe as") to satisfy Pecher:

Critics of the concept contend that it serves to equate what they describe as legitimate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism, and that it is sometimes used to silence debate.

TreveX^talk 14:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Pecher, the sources clearly support the statement:

MEARSHEIMER: No discussion of the Lobby would be complete without an examination of one of its most powerful weapons: the charge of anti-semitism. Anyone who criticises Israel’s actions or argues that pro-Israel groups have significant influence over US Middle Eastern policy – an influence AIPAC celebrates – stands a good chance of being labelled an anti-semite

MEARSHEIMER: the Lobby’s campaign to quash debate about Israel is unhealthy for democracy. Silencing sceptics by organising blacklists and boycotts – or by suggesting that critics are anti-semites – violates the principle of open debate on which democracy depends.

KLUG: Foxman insists that he is not opposed to criticism of Israel. "In every public forum," he says, "I'm always careful to say that criticism of the state of Israel is not necessarily anti-Semitic." But "is not necessarily" implies "is possibly," and what this really means is "it's usually so." In his view, "most of the current attacks on Israel and Zionism are not, at bottom, about the policies and conduct of a particular nation-state. They are about Jews." This is conventional wisdom in the "new anti-Semitism" literature.

I have placed this page on WP:RFC under politics. TreveX^talk 14:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The quotes you provided are about anti-Semitism in general, not about New anti-Semitism in particular. Pecher ^Talk 14:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Complete rubbish. Klug is talking about Abraham Foxman, a leading proponent of new anti-Semitism theories, in an article entitled The Myth of the New Anti-Semitism. How can you, in all seriousness, claim this is not about new anti-Semitism - what Foxman is saying even meets the criteria outlined in this very article as defingin the concept. Mearsheimer's characterisation of the activities of the Israel Lobby (in the article of the same name) also meet criteria in this Wikipedia article. He also uses the phrase new anti-semitism: "Israel’s advocates, when pressed to go beyond mere assertion, claim that there is a ‘new anti-semitism’".

What you basically seem to be saying is that you will decide what new anti-semitism is and you will decide how opposition to it is characterised. TreveX^talk 15:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention the appalling incivility of the above (and below) comment, I must say that you have never been able to provide a quote from Klug supporting your edit "Critics of the concept contend that it serves to equate what they describe as legitimate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism, and that it is sometimes used to silence debate." On the other hand my version "Critics of the concept contend that surging hostility towards Zonism and the State of Israel does not necessarily translate into hostility towards the Jews." is fully supported by this quote: "To argue that hostility to Israel and hostility to Jews are one and the same thing is to conflate the Jewish state with the Jewish people. In fact, Israel is one thing, Jewry another. Accordingly, anti-Zionism is one thing, anti-Semitism another. They are separate. To say they are separate is not to say that they are never connected. But they are independent variables that can be connected in different ways." In a nutshell, Klug says that being against Israel does not automatically means being against the Jews. Again, nowhere does Klug say that the term "new anti-Semitism" is used to silence debate; if he does, show me the quote. general remarks, like "but he talks about Foxman" won't work. Pecher ^Talk 21:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

It is clear that there is a split between editors into two camps: those who are sceptical about the validity of "new anti-Semitism" as a concept and those who support it. What really riles me is that the people in the latter camp (Pecher et al) want to hold sway over what is written about the criticism of the concept and arguing that black is white when sources are provided. TreveX^talk 14:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Try to comment on content, not on editors. Pecher ^Talk 14:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

There is much truth in your comment, by the way, namely that you and some other editors attempt to push into a Wikipedia article your personal POV that New anti-Semitism does not exist, while pretending that your personal POV is actually NPOV. You may want to start your own blog for that purpose, insofar Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for such things. Pecher ^Talk 21:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I will not deny that I'm sceptical of some of the claims made by proponents of NAS. Of course I have a POV, as, quite rightly, do you. However, this doesn't mean that I can't make a valid and balanced contributions backed up by sources ("is there such a thing as objectivity?" etc.) The point I am trying to make is that I believe the proponents of NAS who are editing this article are attempting to stand in the way of a fair and full representation of the criticism of the concept. The only descriptions of criticism of NAS acceptable to you seem to be either grossly oversimplified or featuring deliberately emotive qualifications. TreveX^talk 12:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Pecher mentions "That statement also implies that criticism of Israel is legitimate" ; in a State of law, "legitimate" is defined by law, and in a democracy, you have a fundamental right to voice opinions in the limits defined by law. For instance, in Germany or France, which have rather restrictive laws on the matter, saying "Jews stinks", for instance, is forbidden by law as hate speech ; saying "The role of the State of Israel in the massacre of Sabra is controverted" is accurate an legitimate ; saying "the State of Israel is committing genocide on the Palestinians" is innaccurate yet legitimate. Rama 21:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that you can find anyone who would call the Sabra statement anti-Semitism. The latter statement, no, but when it's said, "Jews talk about the Holocaust, but look what they're doing to the Palestinians" or the like, it gets a little more questionable. What *is* the New Anti-Semitism is the nearly exclusive focus on Israel, generally from the left, as the purported root cause of conflict in the middle east and the war on terrorism. For example, the notion that America brought 9/11 upon itself due to its unforgivable support of Israel. I don't think one can fairly characterize accusations of (new) Anti-Semitism as primarily attempts to silence debate per se, although I grant that some do say this, and from the perspective of the thusly-accused, so they must seem. They are attempts to prevent a debate about whether Israel is the main cause of the world's problems, but only because this debate is genuinely seen as inherently anti-Semitic.

That said, I've no problem with noting that some have made this claim.Timothy Usher 04:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

am not certain that I understand you there: if the existence of the State of Israel, later its occupation of various territories outside its legal borders, are known to be heavily resented by the neighbouring countries, and are cited by Al Qaeda "officials" are the reason for the attacks of the 11th September, focus on Israel might be dictated by mere common sense, could it not ? Rama 06:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

It is only one of many reasons cited by AQ, first among them being the presence of infidels on the Arabian penninsula. Some focus, yes. I don't think the world is in danger of forgetting about Israel, or the conflict in the territories. But exclusive focus, and let's face it, blame, is entirely unwarranted. It's a form of monomania common in Middle Eastern and Nazi discourse, and now in some quarters of the western left. Although, to tell you the truth, I think this is receding on the left, as it's become obvious to most observers that there's a lot more to this than just Israel.Timothy Usher 07:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that the occupation of Iraq seems insufficiently criticised by the Left-wing ? Rama 07:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

"Majority opinion"

Response to something SV posted on my talk page:

SV wrote: "NPOV says we describe majority and significant-minority published opinion; stress on "published." That's why I asked how much of the literature you've read. The term is very far from being used by only one point of view. "

I've posted a number of citations on the Talk page for NAS - there is a signficant body of literature disputing NAS. While critics of the term use the term as well, by necessity, it is only one point of view that supports the term as valid. The term is hotly contested in the literature (see for example reviews of the recent books you've cited). Just because no one has written a book titled "The Myth of the New Anti-Semitism" does not mean the term is generally accepted, mainstream or "majority opinion". Those promoting the term are overwhelmingly supporters of the state of Israel - there are few, if any, opponents of the state of Israel or neutral observers who use the term (and Cohen is not neutral, I don't know if he describes himself as a Zionist and he certainly has some criticisms of Israeli policy but he is generally supportive of Israel). There is no basis on which to treat NAS as if it's a "majority opinion". Homey 16:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Could you name some of the sources you're using, Homey, when you say "significant body of literature," because you're adding nonsense to the page and deleting sources just because you don't like what they're saying. Please stop that kind of editing, because the material has no chance of staying in the article, so what you're doing is very disruptive.

Can you please say which of the books about the NAS you've read? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

"Could you name some of the sources you're using, Homey,"

To paraphrase that great Canadian thinker, the Friendly Giant, scroll up, scroll way up (to the top of the "critics" section.01:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely with the above. But even if you source published reliable material, certain editors appear loathe to let this info appear in the article, claiming that the edits and accompanying sources are:

1. 1. Not relevant
   2. Not relevant enough for the introduction
   3. Relevant to ant-semitism, but not to NAS
   4. Claiming, in my opinion disingenuously, that the source cited takes a completely different meaning and conclusion from what the wrtiter appears to have intended
   5. Claiming that the source is POV and that POV isn't allowed - even to explain the POV of critics!

For an excellent example see Pecher's claim that Klug and Mearsheimer aren't talking about NAS. TreveX^talk 17:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep talking to yourself, folks; you may indeed start an interesting collective blog someday. Pecher ^Talk 21:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Question for SlimVirgin

(edit conflict as usual)

Given your past concerns about style, why have you reverted to this?

Critics of the concept contend that surging hostility towards Zonism and the State of Israel does not necessarily translate into hostility towards the Jews.

Please sign your posts. I reverted to that because my main concern is to keep Homey's and CJC's original research off the page. However, I agree that the other intro ending is tidier, so if you look at my recent edit, I've gone back to that. [unsigned]

Just a suggestion: if you're going to advise others to sign their posts, it might be advisable to sign your own posts. CJCurrie 23:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

In any case, I see that you actually returned my "legitimate criticism of Israel" wording after the first reversion. Why you're accusing me of OR in this situation isn't entirely clear. CJCurrie 23:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Given your past concerns about style, why have you reverted to this?

Critics of the concept contend that surging hostility towards Zonism and the State of Israel does not necessarily translate into hostility towards the Jews.

I see that you've changed this; never mind. CJCurrie 23:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

OR

Homey, you're engaged in pointless original research now, pointless because it has no hope of staying on the page. Please provide a source for the edit that the term existed in the 70s and was then revived by Foxman and Chesler. And of course Gable was talking about the new AS. Don't delete sources just because they don't fit your thesis, please. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

"of course Gable was talking about the new AS"

Assertion is not fact, your assumption is not supported by the link. Gable never uses the term "new anti-Semitism".

"Please provide a source for the edit that the term existed in the 70s and was then revived by Foxman and Chesler. "

"In a book titled "The New Anti-Semitism," Arnold Foster and Benjamin R. Epstein address a "new" flavor of Jew-hatred sweeping the world in their day and age. From black militants and leftist activists to Arab lobbyists, they depict a new danger on the rise and deserving of immediate attention.

Date of publication: 1974.

Thirty years later, we are being treated to a gaggle of books that once again aver there is a "new" antisemitism in the land, and that Jewish security is in grave danger. What's "new" about it in 2004? Is contemporary Jew hatred — from suicide bombings in Israel to swastikas on French synagogues — a new phenomenon, or are these simply examples of classic anti-Judaism refracted through the prism of current realities?"[9]

Please provide a link that shows the term was in common usage in the 1970s as you claimed or, or, that it has been in continuous use prior to Foxman and Chesler? One book does not constitute common usage yet that is the claim made in the passage you defend.Homey 02:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

" Don't delete sources just because they don't fit your thesis, please."

Please explain your deletion of a reference to an alternate meaning of the term "New anti-Semitism" which is supported by several sources?Homey 02:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know about the 1974 book. I was the one who added the link. But I would like a source showing it was revived by Foxman and Chesler. As for your other claim, that it's used to describe Islamophobia, I'm speechless at this kind of editing, and in the intro too. That's all I'm going to say about this. It's clear that no serious debate or research is possible. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

A Jerusalem Post article from 15 March 2006 (written by Daniel Pipes, no less) attempts to refute usage of the term "new anti-Semitism" as it has been used to describe Islamophobia. The existence of this article should constitute sufficient proof that the term has been used in this manner, and that such usage has been the subject of public controversy. I imagine this evidence will be ignored in future reversions.

The salient section of the Pipes article reads as follows:

The Muslim response of denouncing these views as bias, as the "new anti-Semitism, or "Islamophobia" is as baseless as accusing anti-Nazis of "Germanophobia" or anti- communists of "Russophobia." Instead of presenting themselves as victims, Muslims should address this fear by developing a moderate, modern, and good-neighborly version of Islam that rejects radical Islam, jihad, and the subordination of "infidels."

Note that I'm not endorsing or promoting this view; I'm merely demonstrating that the term NAS has been used in the manner described. I await the inevitable response that I'm being disruptive or know nothing about the subject. CJCurrie 02:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

"As for your other claim, that it's used to describe Islamophobia, I'm speechless at this kind of editing, and in the intro too. "

I gave four citations, one from the Guardian, one from the Observer, one from Ha'aretz and one from an Arab source. I don't see why this makes you speechless. You may not have been aware of this usage but it is documented so why shouldn't it be referenced? Homey 03:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

How common is that usage compared to the common usage? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Common enough that the Jerusalem Post, Ha'aretz, the Guardian and the Observer have all used it. Homey 03:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

How often though? Especially in comparison to the common meaning? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Evidently often enough for Daniel Pipes to respond to it. Look, do you honestly deny that it's an alternate meaning? The usage of it includes Arab, Israeli and British sources on all sides of the political spectrum. If you have some political reason for not wanting to compare discrimination against Jews with discrimination against Muslims that's one thing but it's not a legitimate reason for excluding an alternate meaning that has been employed in major newspapers, including the Israeli press. I don't have access to Lexis-Nexis but I suspect whatever number of citations I find will be too low to meet your threshold, even if the number of uses of the term in this sense outnumber the uses of the term in your preferred sense. Homey

Times of London: "A PRIZE-WINNING writer specialising in Islamic affairs says Islamophobia is “the new anti-Semitism” in Britain. William Dalrymple, whose book White Mughals won awards last year for its depiction of a British-Muslim love affair in 18th-century India, said: “Just as Islam has replaced Judaism as the second religion in this country, so I believe it is becoming very clear that Islamophobia is replacing anti-Semitism as the principle expression of bigotry in this country.” [10]

Jerusalem Report: "Abu Sway argued that "Islamophobia is the new anti-Semitism," and Sheikh Hamami spoke of how Muhammad changed the Arabs from "a people who'd been fighting each other in the desert for 40 years, to a people who affected civilization, with heaven's help.""[11]

Daphna Vardi, Kol Israel's UK correspondent: "Since the Danish "cartoon controversy" erupted at the beginning of February 2006 – four months after the first publication of the offending images in the newspaper Jyllands-Posten – there have been many claims that "Islamophobia is the new anti-semitism". But sadly the now global controversy has prompted some Muslims – not always the extremists among them – to give new voice to classic, old-style anti-semitism."

Homey 04:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

These paltry number of sources are using the phrase to mean something entirely different from the subject of this article. If Gloria Vanderbilt proclaims that "Pink is the new black", do we insert in the intro of the Black article that Pink is also considered to be Black? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Good analogy. See the new black. Homey 23:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Except that it breaks down when examined. The phrase "the new Black" is used about any number of colors/things, and used to indicate that the item being described is analogous to Black. That is also how the very small number of examples of "Islamophobia is the New anti-Semitism" is used. However, that is not what the term "The New anti-Semitism" means as it is used in common parlance (i.e. the 180,000 Google hits); rather, as in this article, it is used to describe a specific phenomenon, not to make an analogy between that phenomenon and anything else. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Try googling "is the new anti-Semitism".

Indeed, Chesler uses the phrase in the Vanderbilt-esque sense when she says "anti-Zionism is the new anti-Semitism". [12].

NJ Jewish News: "It’s become conventional wisdom in Jewish communal circles that anti-Zionism is the new anti-Semitism."[13] also [14]

"Hatred of Israel is the new anti-Semitism" (Alan Dershowitz) [15]

We also have "homophobia is the new anti-Semitism"[16]

"Islamophobia is the new anti-semitism" [17]

"Hatred of Fox is the new anti-Semitism"[18]

"gay bigotry is the new anti-Semitism" (Andrew Sullivan) [19]

"anti-Americanism is the new anti-Semitism" [20]

"anti-Catholicism is the new anti-Semitism."[21]

"anti-Papism is the new anti-Semitism" [22]

"Anti-Americanism is the new anti-Semitism among the British" [23]

"Anti-Americanism is the new anti-Semitism" [24]

"Anti-Christianity, it may seem, is the new anti-Semitism" [25]

"WORLDVIEW magazine presented an article which explained that the anti smoking campaign is the new anti Semitism" [26]

"In fact some think anti-Catholicism is the new anti-Semitism." [27]

"You rejected, for reasons you have not clarified yet, Alain Finkelkraut's proposition that today anti-racism is the new anti-Semitism"[28]

(I'm stopping now because I'm getting tired but there are more examples and I'm sure if someone searches a newspaper database over the past few decades they'll find many more. It seems that Jayjg's Vanderbilt-esque sense of the phrase is in quite common usage and is certainly an alternate meaning of the phrase - indeed, historically it's the primary meaning.) Homey 23:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

OR in the introduction

I have removed the following sentence:

The term new anti-Semitism refers to the contemporary international resurgence of anti-Jewish incidents and attacks on Jewish symbols, as well as the acceptance of anti-Semitic beliefs and their expression in public discourse.

Reason: The passage appears to be OR. No one has provided conclusive or even provisional evidence to demonstrate that what is called "new anti-Semitism" is inherently, exclusively, or even primarily responsible for a "contemporary international resurgence of anti-Jewish incidents and attacks on Jewish symbols" or for "the acceptance of anti-Semitic beliefs and their expression in public discourse". There is, in fact, evidence which demonstrates the contrary. Readers are directed to read Manifestations of Antisemitism in the EU 2002-2003: Executive Summary (PDF file), particularly pp. 9-16, wherein several forms of anti-Semitism (including the "old", extreme-right variant) are cited as bearing responsibility for an increase in anti-Semitic activities across Europe.

I have raised this issue several times in recent days, and have not received a coherent or rational justification for retaining the sentence. If the term "new anti-Semitism" is to be designated only as referring to a motivational shift, I do not see how inclusion of the sentence can be justified.

I have subtly modified the next sentence to conform with general Wikipedia policy on bold-texting in introductory sections. Hopefully, this change will not be used to justify a complete reversion.

Based on past experience, I suspect that the deleted passage will be restored without explanation and that my concerns will remain unanswered. Feel free to prove me wrong. CJCurrie 01:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Why are you being so disruptive? You're deleting material only because you haven't read any of the literature. That is why it is all unfamiliar to you. Why not read something, rather than come here and disrupt this page? That's a serious question, by the way. I've never experienced behavior like this from another admin. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Can both of you take a quick look at this link from the archives? It may provide some answers. —Viriditas | Talk 01:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Viriditas. It's a very good summary of what the new anti-Semitism is, and I've added a reference. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin,

Your response is nothing short of insulting. I provided my reasons, and I provided a source; you chose to ignore both. Your accusation of "disruption" is hollow and meaningless, and your accusation of unfamiliarity is a transparent deflection. I've never experienced behaviour like this from another admin either.

That said, I see that my persistence has finally provoked a citation. Let's see if it actually supports the statement. CJCurrie 01:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Please do go and get hold of that book, and READ it. Then you'd at least have something to bring to the debate instead of your own, uninformed personal views. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering, SlimVirgin, if you would agree with the following statement?

"One does not need to hold expert knowledge of any particular subject to identify bias or factual error." CJCurrie 01:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. But you have to know something. There's a happy medium between expert knowledge and not having a read any of the literature. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Why do you assume that I've read nothing on the subject? The changes I've made so far have concerned logical fallacies, oversimplifications and POV phrasing; in most cases, it hasn't been requisite to cite specific sources. CJCurrie 02:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

If you had actually read something on the subject the you wouldn't be asserting that there were "logical fallacies, oversimplification" etc. in the article. Also, removing citations is the opposite of removing POV. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to dignify that with a response. CJCurrie 03:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

If "New antisemitism" is indeed "the contemporary international resurgence of anti-Jewish incidents and attacks on Jewish symbols, as well as the acceptance of anti-Semitic beliefs and their expression in public discourse", then I fail to understand why this article exists in the first place; it should be a "contemporary" section in anti-semitism.

However, I seem to remember that "New antisemitism" is mainly aimed at pro-Arab currents of though (either Palestinian or Arab, or related to some Left-wing movements in Wstern democracies). In this case, the introduction is indeed misleading, because it includes mere contemporary instances of "regular" anti-semitism (like neo-nazis, etc). I think that CJCurrie is very understandable in this case. Rama 07:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

In regards to your first point, please review WP:SIZE. As for your second point, could you point me to a cite? Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 07:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

For the first point, certainly, but then you will easily agree that the title for the article is of a most bizarre nature: imprecise, and coincident with a highly polemical term; a correct title would then be "contemporary antisemitism", or "anti-semitism (1945 - present).

As for your second point, maybe you would care to read the second and third paragraphs of the introduction of this very article ? Rama 07:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

In response: the title of the article is entirely appropriate to the topic; I don't see anything bizarre or imprecise about it. Could you be specific as to what you are referring to when you describe "pro-Arab currents of thought"? I'm welcome and open to any new information you can provide for my edification. —Viriditas | Talk 09:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Whether the title is appropriate or not depends highly on whether this "New anti-Semitism" merely describes contemporary occurences of antisemitism, or if it has something intresically different from "regular" antisemitism. To give analogies, we have an article about "New Labour", which describes new currents of though among the Labour Party; we do not have articles about, say, "New philately" which would discribe philately techniques specific to the second half of the 20th century.

Your remark "please review WP:SIZE" tends to suggest to me that you agree that "New antisemitism" is merely the set of contemporary instances of antisemitism; your remark "is entirely appropriate to the topic", on the other hand, suggests to me that you aknowledge a specific nature to this "New antisemitism" which clearly distinguishes it from "regular" antisemitism. This sort of continuous ambiguities, logical flaws and self-contradictions make it very difficult for me to understand what this article is about.

As for "pro-Arab currents of thought", I could cite, for instance, the "Collecif Urgence Palestine" [29], which I have witnessed being accused of "new antisemitism". Rama 10:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the issues regarding article size and title aren't relevant, so I won't address them. It is obvious that the article is too large to be part of anti-Semitism. Note, this does not imply any contradiction; the article is already split. This may be a slight misunderstanding on your part, however I agree that the article needs more focus. Now, if the CUP have been accused as you say, I would be interested in reading more about it, or if a reliable source can be found, adding it to this article. I'm not immediately familiar with the particular instance you describe. Are you relating a personal experience, or an incident which was publicized in a reliable source? If the latter, then by all means share with us. —Viriditas | Talk 10:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I took a fair number of photographs of the event, including close-ups of the poster detailling the criticism. These were swiftly removed from this article [30], but you can still access them at [31].

Further references are easy to find with Google [32]; you will notice that the site is linked from other left-wing organisations, like the GSSA (a Left-wing group which advocates a dissolution of the Swiss military) [33], Left-wing newspaper Le Courier [34], the unavoidable Indymedia [35], stopthewall.org [36], etc.

On this link [37], you can find an instance of a conference organised by the "Association pour un Etat démocratique en Palestine/Israël" where it turns out that a number of invited speakers are known to publish antisemitic or negationist points in far-right wing papers; the "Collectif Urgence Palestine" consequently withdraws its support of the conference. Rama 11:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to post this information. Could you be so kind as to point me to a particular photo on the commons that best exemplifies your premise? I just want to be sure I'm on the same page as you. —Viriditas | Talk 11:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see you've addressed this in the archives, and I'm reading the discussion. Give me some time. —Viriditas | Talk 11:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, can you come up with a good, informative caption for any given image that you want to include? Please provide at least one for inclusion. —Viriditas | Talk 11:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

My idea was to show both booth, with captions of the sort "These people are accused of 'New antisemitism' by those people for holding these views". Since I had a lengthly discussion without being able to prove that the photographs were showing what they are showing, I suggest someone else than me gives a try at formulating captions. I am a little bit weary of this myself. Rama 08:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a healthy body of literature on this topic; one cannot make it go away by expurgating the title. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Question for Viriditas

First, thank you for your refreshingly constructive contributions to this dialogue. I hope that discussions between us will be based on mutual respect, and on serious concern for the quality of this article.

I wonder if it might be advisable to adjust (not delete) the introductory passage, in light of the 2002-03 European Union report and related documents. Consider:

(i) What is described as "new anti-Semitism" has been blamed for "the contemporary international resurgence of anti-Jewish incidents and attacks on Jewish symbols, as well as the acceptance of anti-Semitic beliefs and their expression in public discourse." (as evidenced by the sources you've listed)

(ii) Published reports, including the EU's 2002-03 document, have blamed what is called the "new anti-Semitism" for contributing to an increase in anti-Semitic activity.

(iii) However, published reports including the EU's 2002-03 document have also blamed the "old" anti-Semitism for contributing to an increase in anti-Semitic activity.

Therefore, would it not better to indicate the NAS as (i) a contributing factor to the resurgence and (ii) identified by some authors as being the resurgence, rather than (iii) being the resurgence as a point of fact?

Would it also be advisable to have this sentence appear after the definition of NAS as representing a motivational change in AS?

Thank you, CJCurrie 01:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

In the interests of time, could you just add your content here so we can see how it reads? I apologize for the short and terse reply. —Viriditas | Talk 02:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll work on this and get back to you. No need to apologize; thank you for the civility of your reply. CJCurrie 02:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Alternate meanings

Why was the amply sourced passage I added to the opening on alternate meanings of "new anti-Semitism" removed? Homey 02:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

See below. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

I think mediation is necessary as there seems to be a fundamental disagreement over basic questions such as whether NAS is a "majority view" or not amongst other questions. Does anyone disagree?Homey 02:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I disagree. You need to stop deleting sourced material. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Readers may note that SlimVirgin made this comment one minute after deleting sourced material from User:HOTR. CJCurrie 02:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Why do you disagree with mediation?Homey 02:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Because it should be possible for intelligent, informed adults to cooperate without the help of a third party. Because I'm astonished by your editing and your promotion of your own ideology over what the literature says. Because I'm very depressed by it, and no longer have the stomach to engage with you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I think your survey of the literature is limited and excludes (or dismisses) writings that argue against the NAS claim. I'm trying to provide balance, others are trying to make the article fit their ideology ie that arguments by Foxman, Dershowitz et al are correct and should be accepted as fact. I don't know why you've removed sourced information regarding alternative meanings of the term since that's a fairly basic feature of introductions in wikipedia and since the alternative meaning is well documented (and rather broadly so, from Arab sources to Haaretz). I don't know why you insist on having a theory, a heavily contested theory, treated as fact or even "majority opinion" when there is no evidence that it is "majority opinion". I think you fail to see your own bias and perhaps you think those who disagree with you can't see theirs. Therefore, mediation makes sense since a dispassionate mediator may be in a better position to determine questions such as balance or bias, majority or contested opinion etc. Homey 02:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

It's unclear to me why you're attributing this to Foxman and Dershowitz, when the term long-preceded them, and is used by many more people than them (including academics). Trying to pin this on Foxman and Dershowitz is an attempt to discredit the phenomenon; please desist. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The precise quote reads Foxman, Dershowitz et al. Cheers, CJCurrie 03:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Given the adamant opposition of certain contributors to any substantive changes in the introduction, I believe mediation is probably the only solution. CJCurrie 03:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

HOTR, request for mediation seems a bit premature don't you think? This is your first day at this article, you've attempted major changes without consensus and deleted sourced material. Does the response to such an uncooperative approach really surprise you? --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 04:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Stored version Line 944: Line 944: Given the adamant opposition of certain contributors to any substantive changes in the introduction, I believe mediation is probably the only solution. CJCurrie 03:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC) Given the adamant opposition of certain contributors to any substantive changes in the introduction, I believe mediation is probably the only solution. CJCurrie 03:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

"when the term long-preceded them, and is used by many more people than them (including academics)."

The term seems to have been coined in 1974 but it did not enter "common" usage (if the current degree of usage can be said to be common) until the past few years. Can you provide evidence of it being in continued use throughout the 1970s, 80s and 90s? If not I think it's fair to call it a neologism. Homey 04:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

"HOTR, request for mediation seems a bit premature don't you think? This is your first day at this article, you've attempted major changes without consensus and deleted sourced material. "

What sourced material have I deleted? CJCurrie points out below that you removed seven sourced items wheras I apparently removed one (possibly inadvertently). Homey 04:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Huh? I've removed seven sourced items? I have no idea what you're talking about. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 04:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was thinking of Jayg when I wrote that. Anway, it seems I removed one source and I believe it was accidental. Conversely, seven sources I provided have been removed.Homey 04:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

"HOTR, request for mediation seems a bit premature don't you think?"

Prove me wrong. Propose a compromise.Homey 04:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the onus is on you to seek consensus, not make unilateral changes. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 04:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the onus on all of us is to seek consensus and I have tried to propose compromises here before but it takes two to tango. Homey 04:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Was it under a different id? I see no edits of yours prior to today. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 04:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

See under "Re: pecher's point on "sourced" statements in the opening" April 14th. Homey 16:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Medition 2

Let's try this again. Are people willing to agree to mediation. If not, what suggestions do you have for a compromise on the issues besides simple reversion to your preferred version of the article?

1) I have to say I'm quite baffled by SV and Jay excluding a heavily sourced reference to an alternative meaning of the "new anti-Semitism". It suggests to me that there's an ideological imperative at play.

2) While the term may have been coined in 1974, we only see a heavy proliferation of it after 2001 and the Second Intifada. I think it's misleading to suggest that the term entered "common usage" in the 1970s and no one here has provided any evidence of its use throughout the period between 1974 and 2001. Can we agree to modify that part of the introduction so that it is not misleading?

3) If the term has only caught on since 2001 then it's fair to call it a neologism just as the Islamophobia article calls that term a neologism

4) The term is not "Majority opinion" and I see no evidence that it is (the only way one can argue this is with blinders on, if one only reads sources that promote the term, exclude those that contest it, and ignore the fact that the sources that promote it come from the same place ideologically). We should not treat "the New Anti-Semitism" as majority opinion but should treat it as what it is, a contested term that has been introduced for polemical reasons. Homey 15:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

5) The term itself seems to have turned into a bit of a cluster concept, some sources refer to it as simply a revival of anti-Semitism without claiming that it is particularly linked to the left, others argue that leftism is an endemic feature of it. The fact that there are differing definitions should be spelled out unless it is Jay and SVs purpose to turn this into a polemical article promoting one particular point of view. Homey 16:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

1) The issue with the "alternative meaning" has been explained below. It is an extreme minority usage describing a different phenomenon, Islamophobia.

2) Your view is interesting, but it's been around for 30 years, and you have no sources for your claims.

3) Original research is forbidden on Wikipedia; who describes it as a "neologism"?

4) The phenomenon itself exists, but some people object to the terminology used for it. Just as Islamophobia describes a phenomenon, not a term, so to does this article.

5) The article itself covers the various facets of the phenomenon, as described in the relevant literature. Like classic anti-Semitism, it is not simply one specific kind of act. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

A "term" used to argue?

"Terms" can't be used to argue anything; terms can only be used to describe things. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Terms cannot argue but they can be used as part of a polemic in order to mischaracterise, dismiss or stigmatise an opposing view or, alternatively as euphemisms to make a position more palatable. Homey 04:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree that terms can't argue anything; let's not assert they can in the article, ok? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't. I asserted that the term was used in an argument, not that the term was arguing anything itself. Perhaps "term used by those who argue that..." would be more precise? I am unaware of the term "New Anti-Semitism" being used by anyone outside of those who support Israel aside from critics attempting to refute the term. If you have evidence that the term is being used generically please provide it.Homey

Supporters of Israel both agree with the term and disagree with the term, as the references at the bottom of the article show, so that certainly isn't the deciding factor. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

You're inverting what I said. Just because all economists wear hats doesn't mean all those who wear hats are economists. Yes, some who support Israel oppose the phrase "New anti-Semitism" but what I was saying was that all those who use the phrase "New anti-Semtism" are supporters of Israel. You've provided no evidence to the contrary. Thus the concept of a "New Anti-Semitism" is confined to a particular ideology and being used for a polemical purpose rather than a generic, neutral term used as a mere descriptive as you contend. Again, if this is not so then please provide evidence of those who are not supporters of Israel (and they don't have to be opponents) using the term other than in examples of critics invoking the term during their attempts to refute it. Homey 23:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Homey, you keep asking me to prove negatives. Instead, if you keep asserting novel theses (for example, that all who use the phrase "New anti-Semitism" are supporters of Israel), it is you who must provide reliable sources supported your novel thesis, avoiding original research. Do you have any? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Come on Homey, I see that you are an admin, yet you are trying to say that it is our responsibility to prove that yourclaims are not true. Not only does this not make any sense, but your claim is extremely dubious to begin with.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

No JG, I'm not asking you to prove a negative or a novel thesis. I'm asking you to prove that the concept of a "New anti-Semitism" is a majority view, a mainstream term. It seems that you cannot yet you insist that we treat it as a majority view. Homey 01:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Huh? What are the groundrules concerning "proof" that something is a "mainstream term", and how am I insisting you treat it that way? A simple Google search gets 180,000 hits, which alone would be enough. Certainly far more than, for example, "Anti-Arabism" which only gets 22,000 hits, or "Polonophobia", which gets around 300 hits. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

More irony?

In his edit of 03:32 16 April, Jayjg accused Homey of removing citations.

It may be noted that the only citation which Jayjg restored to the page was critical of the term "new anti-Semitism". I assume it was removed by virtue of being superfluous in relation to other sources.

Jayjg, by contrast, removed seven different citations through his reversion.

Perhaps he would wish to comment on this unusual state of affairs. CJCurrie 03:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, when you don't it understanably tends to breed resentment. It is perfectly acceptable to remove citations that do not qualify as Reliable and reputable. The sources that you removed however, seemed to be acceptable for the article so I have trouble understanding what your reasoning was for removing it.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's assume good faith and assume that Jayjg removed these sources accidentally. Let him now demonstrate that good faith by restoring the sourced material he removed. Homey 04:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it would help if you didn't take a sarcastic tone and perhaps consider the possibility that the other side has a point.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

My responses:

(i) What sources did I remove, exactly?

(ii) Where did Jayjg (or anyone else) present an argument that the removed sources were not reliable and reputable?

(iii) Where did I assert that Jayjg did not act in good faith through his reversions?

(iv) Why are you suggesting that I violated good faith through this section, but not addressing Jayjg's apparent violation of good faith earlier on the page (ie. his assertion that I know nothing about the subject?) CJCurrie 04:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

It does not show good faith when you suggest that Jayjg is somehow being hipocritical, they are diffeent sources and thus have different qualifications for reliablity.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that Jayjg's stated reasons for reversion do not make sense, and I'm giving him the chance to clarify the situation. It would certainly be ironic if he removed citations while claiming to defend them, don't you think?

I'm not disputing that "diffe[r]ent sources have different qualifications for reliability", but the point is that no one has argued the sources are unreliable. CJCurrie 04:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

How are Ha'aretz, the Guardian and the Observer not credible sources?Homey 04:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The sources you gave (all of which were opinion pieces except for a highly dubious one) were an extreme minority usage describing a different phenomenon; the difference between The "New anti-Semitism" and the New "anti-Semitism" is quite obvious. Islamophobia has its own article; this article is about "The New anti-Semitism". Jayjg ^(talk) 22:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

So you're saying that since this article refers to the New anti-Semitism and not the new anti-Semitism disambiguation is not needed? Glad you've cleared that up but I'm afraid those who are not as proficient at hair splitting may still deserve to have a reference to this alternate usage. Can you explain how including an alternate usage is harmful? I see how it might not serve the purpose of a polemical POV article but I don't see how it wouldn't serve the purpose of an encylopedic article such as this one.

So you think Ha'aretz' usage is an "extreme minority usage"? Please explain.Homey 22:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, would you care to address the question at the top of this section? CJCurrie 22:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

They've been addressed already; the citations were an extreme minority usage referring to Islamophobia, not The New anti-Semitism. Also, they were accompanied by a number of other highly POV edits. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that the citations reflect an extreme minority usage? That sounds like OR to me. CJCurrie 22:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

You've only found 4 examples, one from the minutes of a meeting. There are hundreds of examples of the conventional usage, including full-length book treatments. Moreover, as said, it refers to a different phenomenon, treated in its own article. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

So Ha'aretz is an extreme minority now?Homey 22:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

You've only found 4 examples, one from the minutes of a meeting. There are hundreds of examples of the conventional usage, including full-length book treatments.

I will repeat my question: what evidence do you have, beyond your personal extrapolations of the subject matter, that the referenced sources constitute an extreme minority view?

One usage in an opinion piece is not "Ha'aretz". Jayjg ^(talk) 22:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Would you agree to having a mediator weigh in on this since it's impossible to compromise between "X' and "Not X"?Homey 23:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

You need a mediator after one day of editing? That seems premature. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Then stop reverting and suggest a compromise. If you are unable to suggest a compromise (and you have thus far failed to do so) then mediation is the sensible option unless you think we should take this to the ArbComm and have an interim injunction barring all parties from editing this article. Homey 02:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

You started editing this article yesterday, after it had achieved a longstanding consensus, and tried to revert-war in massive changes, violating 3RR, then demanded immediate negotiation when that didn't work. It looks to me like you haven't even tried the Talk: page approach yet. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The reason why news organizations have opinion peices is basically so that they can cater to various viewpoints without having to risk their neutrality. Even reputable sources like time magazine and CNN have some editorials that shouldn't even be presented on wikipedia as fact, would we use Lou Dobbs as a source without question on an article about Mexicans? of course not.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

We are not seeking a source on claims, simply a source on usage. The fact remains that the term "New anti-Semitism" used to mean Islamophobia has appeared in a number of mainstream publications including the Guardian, The Times of London, the Observer, Ha'aretz, Jerusalem Report and the Jerusalem Post.

I suspect that the use of the term in the sense we are generally discussion in the article has mostly occured in opinion pieces in the mainstream press rather than in hard news pieces.

We should not use Lou Dobbs as a source on facts without question, however, if we were writing an article on the phrase "Exporting America" then we would cite Lou Dobbs as a source for that phrase being used to mean outsourcing. Homey 01:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

As I've said above, just because Gloria Vanderbilt said "Pink is the new Black", it doesn't mean we put a statement in the intro of the Black article stating "According to some, Pink is also Black". Jayjg ^(talk) 03:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps then, in that vein, we should reference the fact that "New Anti-Semitism" has often been used to make an analogy between what might be seen as a more recently prominent form of oppression and anti-Semitism. For instance, "Homophobia is the new Anti-Semitism" (which I seem to recall from the 1980s) or Islamophobia is the new Anti-Semitism which has been used more recently. Homey 04:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're suggesting, nor what sources you are using to back up your suggestion. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying that your attempt to sidestep the question of alternate meanings is self-defeating as it only leads you to another alternative meaning.Homey 19:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

There is only one commonly used meaning for the term "New anti-Semitism", just as there is only one commonly used meaning for the colour "Black", even though many have asserted that Pink, Blue, Orange, etc. are all the new Black. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Your analogy does not serve your argument. See the new black. Homey 23:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it does (see above also). "The New black" is intended as an analogy, as is the "alternative definition" you are promoting. However, in common parlance "The New anti-Semitism" is describing a phenomenon, not making an analogy. That is precisely the problem here. This is the article about "Black", not about various analogies used in relation to Black. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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."[38]

"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.”"[39]

(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.[40]

'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."[41]

"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."[42]

"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."[43]

"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."[44]

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 [45]. 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." [46] 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.[47]

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.[48]

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."[49] 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[50] (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[51] 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."[52]

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? [53] 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. [54] 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 [55], [56], [57], [58]. 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)