Talk:New antisemitism/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

There are still serious problems with this article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One important thread of the early "new anti-Semitism" discussion concerned the Nation of Islam in the US and related movements. In 1992 Henry Louis Gates Jr. wrote about the book The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews. [1] He called it "the bible of the new [black] anti-Semitism", "one of the most sophisticated instances of hate literature yet compiled" which "massively mis-represents the historical record".

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

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

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

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

"Inaccurate criticism"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michael Neumann

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neumann is Jewish [2]. It's not disputed anywhere. More bio here. I don't think his Jewishness is relevant in this article.--Denis Diderot 12:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Question for SlimVirgin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Informal mediation

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

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

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

Protected

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

Intro

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

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

placed by Mccready 12:54, 28 April 2006

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

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

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

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

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

Ilka Schroder

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

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

Interesting. Thanks for posting it. We might want to mention her response to the EU report, if she's notable enough. [3] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Well I guess I'll change it back.

Slim Virgin's definition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's keep in mind that the subject here is antisemitism and its denial, therefore I think Holocaust denial is very relevant. When Jews are casually being equated to Nazis, the Jewish state - to Nazi Germany and the Israeli flag is singled out to be burned at WWII commemoration [4], I find the invocation of the Godwin's Law ironic to say the least. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Name change

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hence the importance of reading, erm, books.

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

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

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

Simple typo

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

A note on sources

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

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

Testing the house

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

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

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

This is really confusing. IMHO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Slim,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can someone have supported the indian wars without being a racist

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Slim,

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

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

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

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

Update:

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

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

Responses to SV:

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

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

You've only said no because Homey did

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

you had already agreed in principle.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing the Subject bad parallel

I don't have time to read the whole thing thoughroughly but in reading the first section I have one serious criticism. The 4th paragraph of the 'nature of' section (starting with Alan Dershowitz) is what I'm talking about. This paragraph tries to make a kind of logic out of comparing criticism specifically of isreal with an example of a jerk from harvard, who definately was anti-semetic, in the 1920s. While there is a certain parallel in the language I think this is a false parallel to be making. Either this paragraph should be removed or it should be indicated that this logic is that of the book by Dershowitz, which I'm not sure if it is the case, I don't know the book.

Overall my very shallow impression of this article is this: There are these kind of political activists who are on the right wing and are trying to promote this term and concept as a way of promoting their views about isreals imperialism. There is a large internet presence of disruptive trolls who attack Indymedi with this kind of thing. Personally I don't agree with their view. However, I think they do have a point. There probably is some new modern leftist kind of anti-semitism out there. The thing is to have a wikipedia article that is honest about that and not just a podium for the trolls political views. The trolls are often not reasonable at all about this and all sorts of crazy disinformation flies every which way as it tends to in IMC when people talk about Isreal/Palestine.

The truth of this all is not black and white. Fortunately wikipedia is good at handling sophisticated contradictions. Yes Isreal is imperialistic and racist there are deceitful arguements to justify it. Yes anti jewish anti semetic racism is rampant and is sometimes manifest by unfairly targeting isreal, by having double standards and not seeing how more people are killed in other conflicts in africa for instance.

So the tools to deal with this wikipedia has are #1 the easy links which mean you can put discussion of the seperate topic, military history of the middle east or jewish customs... put that all away in a different topic somewhere else where it is less convoluted. #2 Present all sides (there are more than two) in their own section so that the thing presents opinion as such.

I think this article is too long, it should just discuss the term. There should be a seperate section or entry for the 'concept' part.

Kudos to all of you wading through this who are better informed than me. Racism is such a load of crap, look where it leads us. Too bad it is so old and permeates so many things. Actually, I would like to point out that my understanding of history is that these things are not as old as they claim to be. 154.20.109.121 09:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)rusl

Obfuscation over mediation

HOTR posted above that it was our fault that he couldn't take part in the mediation, because he'd first suggested it on April 16, but we were too slow to say yes, and now he's too busy.

However, he last suggested it on April 26: "Let's take this to mediation. If you are confident that your position reflects Wikipedia policy than you have no reason to fear mediation." Homey 22:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC) [6]

I suggested on April 28 that we'd be unlikely to find a formal mediator, so I offered to look for an informal one. I contacted Mel, he agreed, and I e-mailed Homey with that offer on April 30 — within four days of Homey's suggestion. This puts paid to his claim that he would have had time if only we had agreed earlier. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The reality remains that I have less than an hour, on average, a day on a computer so I have no time to deal with this until the end of the month. Homey 13:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Come on Homey, we should not have to wait until the end of the month so that you can be involved. Like the rest of us, I would like it if you could engage in the process, but I do not wish it to the detriment of everyone else. Could you maybe throw in your two cents or somthing and then allow us to proceed with the mediation without you?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 13:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

That's your problem, Homey; if you have no time to contribuite, don't. Other editors do not require your approval to edit this page; please read Wikipedia:The world does not revolve around you if you think otherwise. Pecher ^Talk 14:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

So you want me to agree to a mediation process that I can't participate in?Homey 00:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

We want you to throw your support behind mediation, it would be preferable if you can participate, but I think it is ludicrous to suggest there should not be mediation because you are too busy to be engaged with it.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

As I've said earlier, I asked for mediation last month but SV refused. I don't see why "The World Does Not Revolve Around You" didn't apply then but applies now, but of course, as this debate is all about double standards anyways I guess it shouldn't be a surprise. If SV saw no hurry to agree to mediation last month I don't see why she suddenly sees an urgent need now. Of course, I guess it's possible she may be suggesting mediation because she knows I'm unavailable but it's not for me to question motives. If she, and you, truly want mediation involving everyone then you should be willing to accomodate by waiting a few weeks.Homey 00:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I find this very disturbing. You last suggested mediation on April 26. [7] On April 28, I said I would look for someone. By April 30, I had found someone and he had agreed, so I suggested him to you by e-mail on April 30, an e-mail you acknowledged receiving. Between then and May 7, you wouldn't respond properly, then on May 7 said you didn't have time. Now you say "I guess it's possible she may be suggesting mediation because she knows I'm unavailable ..." Wow. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Then how do you explain your absolute refusal to wait two to three weeks when I have committed to accepting mediation at that time? We're no longer arguing about mediation, we're arguing about the time line. I've explained why I can't agree to it now and you, privately, seem to have accepted that at long last (perhaps you should tell Jayjg) yet you are still insisting that mediation must begin now! now! now! even though your mediator of choice has apparently said to CJCurrie that he can wait.Homey 01:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

"...it's not for me to question motives" says Homey, immediately after questioning motives for the nth time on this page. A rather transparent yet breathtaking display of dishonesty that makes one question the veracity of everything you have said on this Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

SV, the reason I "wouldn't respond properly" is because I've been working 14 hour days, 7 days a week since the end of April. I have told you this several times, including in email responses to you, but you refuse to accept this at face value and are instead making various insinuations. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I suggest before you again suggest that I am not telling the truth regarding my employment situation you a) count up exactly how much time I've spent on wikipedia since the beginning of the month and b) ask someone to run a checkIP on my edits for the last few weeks.

I don't see how you can throw out accusations because you don't get an immediate response (sorry, I don't live on wikipedia right now) and make varioius personal attacks and then expect someone not to respond with annoyance.

Frankly, that you insist on proceeding with mediation after I've told you both privately and publicly (more recently) that I have limited time online for the next few weeks makes one wonder whether you are doing this deliberately. Don't expect people not to question your sincerity when you do nothing but question the sincerity of others. Homey 02:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Apparently you have plenty of time to edit war at other articles, but none for this one. Your edit-warring and 3RR/RFPP game-playing here has already paralyzed this article for 3 weeks. It's enough. Whether you co-operate or obfuscate, the mediation and improvement in this article will proceed. If you choose to ignore it, then come back later and try to edit-war it into your POV again, your actions will be dealt with appropriately. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

That's because it's Sunday which is a mercifully short day for me. My other "edit warring" consisted of making a change to the Self-hating Jew article which you and everyone else in the article has accepted (some edit war) and restoring a reference to "straw dog analogies" in the straw man article, another change which has been incorporated though in a slightly different form than I originally made. Most people would call such editing constructive rather than "edit warring". Even if you can't concede that you should at least concede that the number of edits made to both articles is slight, five edits to straw man and its talk page in the past 72 hours and less than a dozen edits in the same period to Self-hating Jew. Are there any other straws you'd like to grasp at, Jayjg?Homey 00:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Homey did not tell me privately he could not engage in mediation. Timeline:

• April 26: Homey suggests mediation. "Let's take this to mediation. If you are confident that your position reflects Wikipedia policy than you have no reason to fear mediation." [8]
• April 28: I offer to find an informal mediator.
• April 30: Mel Etitis agrees. I email Homey and ask whether he agrees.
• May 1: Homey e-mails to say he is happy with the intro as it is. No mention of mediation or his work.
• May 1: I email him to point out that he was revert warring to get rid of the intro he now says he's happy with, and that there are other areas in the article to sort out too.
• May 2: He emails again to say he is happy with the intro; makes no reference to mediation or his work.
• May 2: I email him again to ask whether he agrees to mediation. No response.
• May 3: I post on Talk:New anti-Semitism asking for a response. [9] Homey does not reply.
• May 4: I post on Homey's talk page asking for a response. [10] Homey does not reply.
• May 4: I post on Talk:New anti-Semitism again noting that I can't get a response from Homey, and that we may have to proceed without him. [11]
• May 5: Homey responds to the mediation request for the first time saying he has no time. [12] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Homey did not tell me privately he could not engage in mediation. Timeline:

• April 26: Homey suggests mediation. "Let's take this to mediation. If you are confident that your position reflects Wikipedia policy than you have no reason to fear mediation." [13]
• April 28: I offer to find an informal mediator.
• April 30: Mel Etitis agrees. I email Homey and ask whether he agrees.
  • 'April 30: Homey emails CJCurrie and says "With my current job (I'm interning as a [deleted]) I'm only on wiikpedia for a few minutes a day so I don't really have much time to get heavily involved, particularly when it comes to doing research." Homey 15:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• May 1: Homey e-mails to say he is happy with the intro as it is. No mention of mediation or his work.
  • I say "I'm kind of happy with the intro the way it is now (I think the comment from the BFO guy should be added to the body of the article but I can't imagine that would be a problem)Homey 15:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• May 1: I email him to point out that he was revert warring to get rid of the intro he now says he's happy with, and that there are other areas in the article to sort out too.
  • May 1: I open the "testing the House" section in this Talk page asking people if they can live with the intro as it is). Homey 15:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• May 2: He emails again to say he is happy with the intro; makes no reference to mediation or his work.

I say "The intro has improved in the past few weeks. A "before" and "after" comparsion defiintely shows that and I think you would concede that if you looked at the diffs. It's unclear to me what you would like to see changed at this point. If you look at the talk page I said quite clearly I was happy with the intro several days ago before editors started playing around with quotations."

• May 2: I email him again to ask whether he agrees to mediation. No response.
  • There was a response: "My question is are you willing to accept the intro as it is at present?"
• May 3: I post on Talk:New anti-Semitism asking for a response. [14] Homey does not reply.
• May 4: I post on Homey's talk page asking for a response. [15] Homey does not reply.
• May 4: I post on Talk:New anti-Semitism again noting that I can't get a response from Homey, and that we may have to proceed without him. [16]
• May 5: Homey responds to the mediation request for the first time saying he has no time. [17] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Please check exactly how much time I spent online in those days and the IP addresses from which I've been posting. In any case, I sent CJCurrie an email on April 30th which said "With my current job (I'm interning as a [deleted]) I'm only on wiikpedia for a few minutes a day so I don't really have much time to get heavily involved, particularly when it comes to doing research." I had thought I had sent that to you as well but it seems according to my records I did not so I am sorry for that. However, I did send you the CJCurrie email prior to your posting the timeline above so I think it's somewhat disengenuous for you to have posted the timeline given the information I've given you.

I responded to the request for mediation by saying I didn't think it was necessary because the state of the intro as it was is satisfactory and by trying to determine whether 1) SV could live with the intro as it is and b) whether others are. SV has never, as far as I can tell, given me a direct answer about the intro or what she wants changed. The backstory for my response is time-related ie if everyone can live with the intro then we don't need mediation which I don't have time for. Had SV responded to my inquiry regarding whether or not she could live with the status quo sooner then I would have given her a yes or no answer sooner. As it was, she ignored my questions and insisted on a yes or no to mediation. Given my work situation at present I had no option but to say no. Evidently, SV does not take very well to being told no so she's responded with something of a tantrum sending me emails threatening to have my desysopped if I do not agree to mediation and starting a personal campaign against me here. Homey 15:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

To add further perspective, I might note that Mel has agreed to defer his mediation until all participants have agreed on a suitable timeframe. CJCurrie 20:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

This is unbelievable. I did not send Homey any emails threatening to have him desysopped if he does not agree to mediation. This level of misrepresentation is extremely disturbing. I don't know what else to say. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, to be precise, you sent me an email threatening to take me to the arbcomm if I did not agree to immediate mediation (rather than wait ten days for mediation) and you then sent me a separate email telling me I should be desysopped. Homey 00:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

---

From: slimvirgin

To: (name deleted)

Date: May 6, 2006 9:38 PM

Subject: Re: New anti-Semitism

Then please bow out of the article. I'm guessing you only became involved because CJCurrie asked you to. Since then all you've done is cause trouble, upset people, and made yourself look bad. You should be desysopped over your behavior on that page. It makes me look back to Armchair-whatever his name was, and makes me regret helping you, because now I wonder whether that was your fault all along.

I know you think the intro has improved because of you, but things would have moved a lot faster without you.

With CJCurrie on board and Mel Etitis mediating, we'll produce a good article. I don't think we will with you involved, because you've created a lot of hostility. Please leave us alone.

---

E-mail posted above. I leave it for others to judge whether I was, as he alleged, "threatening to have [him] desysopped if [he does] not agree to mediation." The one thing I've learned from this is never to correspond privately with HOTR again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

There was also another email which began with "I would carefully consider my position in your shoes." then threatened to take me to the arbcomm and detailed my alleged crimes after which you said "Please come to your senses. Either join us in mediation or tell us that you'll leave the page alone from now on."

There was then a second email telling me I "should be desysopped". I think most reasonable people would see that as a threat to agree to immediate mediation or else. Remember that I have already said I'm fine with mediation as long as it beings in a few weeks time. What we see is a temper tantrum from SV, you want it now because you want it now and I'd better agree to what you want now or else. Homey 00:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to keep rebutting this or posting copies of my e-mails, because it's extraordinary behavior. I only want to add that I did not threaten to take HOTR to the arbom if he "did not agree to immediate mediation," as he writes above, and I think this is going to be my last response. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how your two emails together can be seen as anything but a threat. You open by telling me to "carefully consider my position", talk about the case going to arbcomm, tell me I should agree to mediation, send me a second email saying I "should be desysopped" but no, that's not a threat. Can you even see why I might have felt threatened when I read the emails? Will you at least concede that much?Homey 00:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Will you guys get a room? This is far beyond anything appropriate for this talk page. I'm 3/4 inclined (try holding THAT position for a while) to just erase this whole section and any other discussion here that's not specifically about this article. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I support moving this content to an appropriate user subpage or archive. All of this energy could have been spent in mediation. —Viriditas | Talk 01:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Amen. Homey devotes more effort to wasting time than he's ever devoted to seriously pursuing mediation or consensus. Homey, please confine your bizarrely conspiratorial view of the world to a private page of your own, and leave this page for statements that at least marginally conform to reality. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Jayjg, if you really mean your "amen" you should be aware that the comments made by jpgordon and viriditas do not single me out but are directed at both sides. Somewhat disingenous of you to misrepresent their comments as you have. And my interpretation of SV's emails is hardly "bizarre" or "conspiratorial" despite your attempts to label them otherwise. Do you think her emails were appropriate? Homey 03:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
        • So much time for Talk: page bickering, but zero time for mediation... Jayjg ^(talk) 03:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

To CJCurrie above, SlimVirgin says: "No worries, CJ. Can I tell the mediator that you agree but would prefer that it start in, say, a week's time? SlimVirgin (talk) 04:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)" which would have placed the start time for mediation at May 11. My internship is scheduled to end at the 17th but may be extended to the 24th yet my request for an extra six to thirteen days results in a firestorm of abuse, personal attacks, insinuations that my request is not legitimate, calls for me to back out of the article etc by Jay and SV amongst others and what any reasonable and objective person would see as a threat to take me to the arbcomm and/or have me desysopped if I refuse to agree to immediate mediation. Homey 01:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Make that 7/8ths. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Give it a rest, Homey. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Please adopt a better attitude, Jayjg. You haven't exactly been raising the level of discourse with your edits today. Homey 03:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
    • So much time for Talk: page bickering, but zero time for mediation... Jayjg ^(talk) 03:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Ah, I see you've reverted to being distrustful and cynical. Ok, clock my wikipedia time for the next two or three weeks and then tell me I had time for mediation. Homey 03:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
      • What mediation would that be Jayjg, the mediation that wasn't to begin for another three days? How, exactly, do you advise I devote time to something that hasn't begun? Now, I did ask SV several times in my emails to enumerate exactly what she objects to in the current introduction, a request she has not reply to but I don't see what I can do besides that.Homey 04:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Let's look at this from a different perspective; we are all in agreement on one point: we want to improve this article. Can we go from there? There's no need for the bickering. Homey, if you can find the time to participate in mediation then that would be great. If not, then we'll miss you. I don't think this argument is getting us anywhere, so can we all agree to stop? —Viriditas | Talk 10:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Two comments:

(i) I will reiterate that the proposed mediator has informed me that he's willing to defer mediation until all parties have agreed on a suitable timeframe. I believe in principle that mediation is required for this article, but I don't see that waiting for three weeks is an insurmountable problem (particularly given that it would likely take this long for an official mediation process to begin).

(ii) I believe that the current participants in this discussion should make use of this three week period to solicit opinions from neutral Wikipedians who have not previously participated in this discussion. My reasons are as follows: a) the discussions on this page have become stale and predictable, and soliciting outside perspectives would be useful, b) tempers are very frayed at present, and a "time out" for all of the main participants might improve the civility of discourse, c) this discussion is already quite long and imposing for new arrivals, and a pause would give other Wikipedians a chance to catch up on the main points of contention.

CJCurrie 21:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Mediation continued

CJCurrie invited me to look over this debate. I thought of several things to say about the article and I thought of several things to say about the above dispute, but then I decided they added little! As far as I can see, there is broad support for the idea of mediation, but a disagreement over the timeframe. In that situation, it would seem sensible to me to actively involve the mediator and let the mediator help resolve the dispute over the details of the process of mediation. CJCurrie suggests that "it would likely take this long for an official mediation process to begin", i.e. the delay Homey requests. If that is so, go forward with a formal request for mediation now, but flag these issues up to the mediator. If the mediation process gets going before Homey is able to devote more time to it, then he and/or CJCurrie can raise that issue with the mediator and the mediator can propose a course of action. If the mediation process takes three or more weeks to get going anyway, then the whole matter is moot. Bondegezou 16:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I'm not certain that a formal request for mediation is needed at present: SlimVirgin's nominee is someone that most (perhaps all) parties consider trustworthy, and there's no guarantee that someone chosen by the mediation committee would command a similar level of respect. If others want to initiate a formal request for mediation, however, I won't stand in the way. CJCurrie 22:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, when requesting mediation, the disputants are welcome, even encouraged, to suggest a mediator. I don't think there would be any question of the mediation committee imposing someone if the parties are agreed as to an individual. See Wikipedia:Mediation#Who_will_mediate.3F. Bondegezou 13:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

My internship is over so I can participate in mediation now if people want to proceed. Homey 16:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I've e-mailed Mel to let him know and to ask him to proceed, if he's still willing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Why are Michael Neumanns views on anti-semitism notable? I thought that with his 'history' of comments/associations he would be ineligible. Gilead 12:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Mel has replied that he's still willing to do it, but is busy until Saturday, so he'll try to take a look then. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

There's a matter that I'd like to clear up before Mel arrives.

When SlimVirgin contacted me concerning Mel's offer to mediate the page, she indicated that the mediator's final decisions should be binding on all participants. I made no comment on this at the time.

I later indicated that I would accept Mel's offer of mediation, subject to a few clarifications. I spoke to Mel about these, and was satisfied with his response.

The only clarification that need be mentioned on this forum concerns the possibility of an appeal to the Arbitration Committee.

Although I have high regard for Mel Etitis's abilities to mediate this dispute, I believe that participants in the present discussion would be ill-advised to deny themselves the option of an appeal to higher authorities within Wikipedia. No one contributor, however uniquely situated to hold the trust of all parties, should be given an absolute carte blanche discretion as regards the future of this page.

When I spoke to Mel, I indicated that I would insist on retaining the possibility of an appeal to the ArbComm. He agreed that this would be acceptable.

I should clarify that I am not mentioning this now to poison the mediation process, nor to position myself for a frivolous appeal if the mediator's decision is contrary to my preference. I hope that the mediation will be successful, and I will endeavour to make it so. I will also make every reasonable effort to avoid the necessity of an appeal, even in the mediator's decision results in a page with which I entirely disagree. Nonetheless, I must insist that the path to appeal remain open.

I had planned to mention this earlier, but the previous delay in mediation rendered the matter temporarily irrelevant. CJCurrie 22:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Bear in mind that the arbitration committee doesn't hear content disputes, so it's not clear what could be appealed. I think we should agree to stick by the outcome. Of course, we can't be forced to, but we should have a ladies' and gentlemen's agreement to bind ourselves. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree to this being binding. That's fairly typical of how real courts work. At a certain level you can only address questions of law you can no longer try questions of fact example. As far as I know there are no questions about policy or conduct in this new anti-Semitism debate and since the arb committe is like We are all arguing about the content of the article. I don't think we are limiting ourselves terribly by agreeing here and its a sign of good faith. Otherwise if we just wanted a neutral 3rd party why wouldn't we use the mediation cabal guy from a month ago?

(NOTE: Just to be safe, while I am talking about the real law there is no "legal threat" to anyone implied by any of this). jbolden1517^Talk 23:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I should have worded my previous message to read "the ArbComm and other higher authorities in Wikipedia", though it's possible that the ArbComm could intervene here on a procedural matter.

In any event, I can affirm that I will (i) make every effort to make the mediation process work, and (ii) not appeal to any higher Wikipedia authority except as an absolute last resort. This is as much as I expect from all other participants. CJCurrie 23:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you give an example of what a "last resort" would be, or what would require it, CJ? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I can give three responses to the second question:

• A decision which seems to violate Wikipedia's official rules of procedure in some way.
• A decision which is premised on a dubious or questionable interpretation of Wikipedia's official rules of procedure.
• A decision which is not adequately justified by the mediator.

To the first question, I can only respond as follows: an appeal to the appropriate overseeing body. I emphasize that I do not anticipate the need for any such an appeal in this context. CJCurrie 23:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

I suspect that there's no way to make a mediation process enjoyable for anyone, nor to avoid a fair bit of repetition of what's already been said in the dispute. I hope, though, to provide a clean sheet — a way for those who have been involved in the dispute, and who have gradually slipped into acrimony and personal antagonism, to step back and simply discuss the issues again. To that end I've started a mediation page at which I ask those involved each to give a brief neutral account of the dispute (trying to explain it in a way that would be accepted by all sides), and then to say how they think it would be best resolved.

My hope is that this will at least begin to get everyone away from the personal aspects of the dispute and back to what matters — the quality of the article.

If anyone has any objection to this way of doing things, could they leave a comment at my Talk page? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Three people have added material so far (in accordance with varying understandings of the term "brief"...), which has been useful — thank you. I shan't say anything myself until more disputants have spoken, though. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

A couple more, thanks. I've moved one debate to a new sub-page (User talk:Mel Etitis/New anti-Semitism mediation debate page), but I'd rather that people just added to their own sections rather than engaging in debate, at this point. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I've now down-loaded the mediation page as well as the current article, and I'll be going through all the material off-line (just to reassure people that I haven't just drifted off and left the matter). As soon as I think that I've grasped all the positions, and perhaps have some ideas as to how to start resolving the dispute, I'll come back here and lay out some suggestions (or ask some more questions). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

To Add to Criticism Section: Juan Cole

Juan Cole, a Michigan historian and pundit, has also written on about this subject. In the context of 2002 when many were concerned about the deterioriate situation in the Occupied Territories, Cole argued that some where using the label of "anti-Semitism" to silence criticisms of the policies of Arial Sharon's government:

"But some use 'Never again' in a far more disturbing way, as a warrant for imprisoning, crushing or dispersing the Palestinian people. The state of Israel is a project of Jewish nationalism that is as legitimate as any other national project. But Israel as a state is not perfect and cannot be above criticism in democratic societies, including practical criticism."

"The false and monstrous equation of practical criticism of Ariel Sharon's policies with anti-Semitism is designed to silence voices critical of those policies, and to make the divestment movement look as though it were motivated merely by bigotry."

"Summers's statements are most urgently dangerous because they cheapen the phrase "anti-Semitism," and thereby weaken its force and its power in the struggle for civil liberties and human rights for everyone."

From: Juan Cole, The Misuses of Anti-Semitism, George Mason University's History News Network, September 20, 2002.

Delete this farcical article

Removed trolling by banned user Zordrac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- Malber (talk • contribs) 15:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC) Sorry but your arguments are completely nonsensical. Also please see WP:AGF.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The anon user is a previously blocked user, I have banned the user for personal attacks and trolling. Homey 14:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Original "socialist anti-Zionism"

As soon as the "Anti-Zionism" section "Socialist Anti-Zionism" is restored, there should be some discussion on possible connections between the original socialist anti-Zionism (consider Lenin's attacks on anti-Semitism with the simultaneous ban on the usage of Hebrew and the attack on the Jewish Bund) and the "new anti-Semitism." Darth Sidious 22:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you're overreaching. At the very least you're getting into original research.Homey 22:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

But there WAS the section "Socialist Anti-Zionism" in the main "Anti-Zionism" article. At the very least, whoever removed that section should put it back. By the way, that section goes beyond mere Bolshevik anti-Zionism, but also discusses anti-Zionism in relation to the Second International and other Marxists (see Rosa Luxemburg and then-Menshevik Leon Trotsky). Darth Sidious 23:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Mediation: initial thoughts

I'm sorry that this taking so long. There was an awful lot of material left at the pages I started, as well as the discussion at this Talk page, and the history of the article to go through. (And I have a real life, including undergraduates for whom I'm responsible, and who are sitting their Finals and Prelims this term.)

One thing is clear: there is absolutely no mileage in assigning blame for the situation that was reached. Aside from the fact that it would serve no useful purpose, there are faults on all sides, and totting up numbers and degrees of sins would be a horrible, divisive, and ultimately nugatory task.

What we really need to do is get basic agreement on the shape and content of the article. There is, in fact. considerable agreement among those involved on the general principles, and even on much of the specific content — the problem is partly that people differ over issues of organisation and emphasis, partly that their positions have become more extreme and inflexible over the course of the dispute, and partly some genuine disagreements of a more substantial nature.

I think that everyone agrees that the summary should be completely neutral, introducing the main way that the term "the new anti-Semitism" is used, and indicating briefly the existence and main approaches of those who defend and criticise it. What do editors think of the following attempt at this? It lacks the references, which can be inserted in the appropriate places (I've stuck to material from the summary as it stands at the moment, only presenting it in a more neutral way):

New anti-Semitism is the concept of an 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, which is held to be associated with certain left-wing political views. The adjective "new" is used to distinguish this form of anti-Semitism from the older, usually right-wing form. The term was used as early as 1974, but entered common usage to refer to a wave of anti-Semitism that escalated, particularly in Western Europe, after the Second Intifada in 2000, the failure of the Oslo accords, and the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington, DC.

Proponents of the concept argue that anti-Americanism, anti-Zionism, and opposition to the policies of the government of Israel are either coupled with anti-Semitism or disguised anti-Semitism. Professor Yehuda Bauer of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has called it the "fourth wave" of anti-Semitism to spread across the West since 1945.

Critics of the concept argue that it serves to equate legitimate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism, and that it is sometimes used to silence debate. Tariq Ali wrote in Counterpunch that recent usage of the term is a "cynical ploy" by the Israeli government to shield itself from criticism of its treatment of the Palestinians.

I've tried to keep this neutral between all opinions, and I don't think that it makes any assumptions about the actual instantiation of the concept or the truth of the competing views. If this is acceptable, we could move on to the more controversial sections. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Mel,

Thank you for your recommendation. I believe I can accept much of what you've written, although some modifications and/or additions may yet be in order.

I'll provide a more detailed response once I've considered the matter further. My initial response, though, is mostly favourable. CJCurrie 02:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I actually think that intro is biased. Its the sort of intro you would write for alien abductions whether you are questioning whether the entire thing is a farce. It questions whether there are any anti-Semetic incidents (we have murders, synagogues being blown up, vandalism, public support for all sorts anti Israeli slogans, an anti-Jewish rape, machine attacks against El Al airlines passengers....) there are unquestionably incidents "is the concept of an international resurgence" has to go. Opponents of the term by in large are apologists or advocates for political terror. The arguments over new anti-semitism is whether this particular types of attacks are justified based on political circumstance that would apply to anyone or whether they are being justified based on who is the target.

That is discussing western anti-zionism without discussing their use of political terror is like discussing the 19th century klan while discounting the existence of lynching. There can disagreement as to whether the Klan was involved in "resistance to occupation" or "terrorism" but there can be no disagreement that they were engaged in violence. I don't see how this is a compromise. It basically accepts the legitimacy of anti-Zionism which begs the question. jbolden1517^Talk 05:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

"It questions whether there are any anti-Semetic incidents (we have murders, synagogues being blown up, vandalism, public support for all sorts anti Israeli slogans, an anti-Jewish rape, machine attacks against El Al airlines passengers....)"

Jbolden, I have trouble reconciling your claim above with this line from what Mel has written (emphasis added):

"The term was used as early as 1974, but entered common usage to refer to a wave of anti-Semitism that escalated, particularly in Western Europe, after the Second Intifada in 2000"

It's clearly stated as a fact that there was "a wave of anti-Semitism that escalated..." I don't see how how this "questions whether there are any anti-Semitic incidents".

I think you are conflating the rise of anti-Semitic inicidents, which is stated as a plain fact, with the intrepretation of these incidents as indicative of anything that is qualitatively "New" - which is a theory. Homey 06:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

No its precisely the anti-Semitism that is in question, its the terrorism that's not in question. In other words we shouldn't be questioning the increase in overtly anti-Jewish acts, we shouldn't be questioning the increase of anti-Jewish statements we shouldn't be questioning that fact that there are left wing apologists for those acts. What the other side is arguing is that this doesn't constitute anti-Semitism. The intro IMHO questions the terrorism not the anti-Semitism. Look if everyone else is happy I'll drop out, I was tangential to this conversation from the beginning. However I think this isn't right. jbolden1517^Talk 12:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

see above.

I'm afraid that jbolden1517's response isn't helpful, and perpetuates the problems of the original dispute. Central to most disputes of this kind is the tendency to suppose that anything that doesn't match exactly what one wants to say must be biased or PoV. As Homey has pointed out, the version that I've offered doesn't have the implication that anti-Semitism is imaginary.

Moreover, the point of new anti-Semitism, surely, and what marks it out sufficiently from anti-Semitism to demand a separate article, is its explanation of anti-Semitism, and its interpretation of apparently anti-Zionist or anti-Israeli-givernment views as in fact anti-Semitic. As this interpretation is what is disputed by opponents of the concept, it's not acceptable to present as fact apparently political protests and positions ("all sorts anti Israeli slogans") as anti-Semitic.

Now, I'm supposed to be mediating, not arbitrating, so I don't want simply to sweep in and say "this is the version of the article that you have to accept" — but I do ask that people try to put aside their built-up suspicions, try to assume good faith, and be prepared to compomise a little. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

In any war there are a group of apologists who attempt to justify the acts of the ground soldiers. At this point in the west it is impossible to argue that (killing random jews, vandalism, shutting down jewish cultural centers...) is a good or acceptable behavior, So instead what the apologists do is argue that it is the inevitable outcome of certain Jewish acts. Those justifying acts are different then the acts that were used in the 19th and early 20th centuries. The argument is whether those differences in justifying acts are large enough or not to make the anti-Jewish terrorism anti-Semetic or justified retaliation (though this could be rephrased a bit). Think about G. W. Griffith with Birth of a Nation, what was he trying to accomplish? Now think about Tariq Ali (I'll pick him because he's in the intro), what is he trying to accomplish? Is the analogy valid (new anti-Semitism exists) or invalid (new anti-Semitism is an illusion)? jbolden1517^Talk 12:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

When haven't I assumed good faith? I stated you were objectively wrong on the facts, I stated nothing about your motives. I mediate complex issues all the time and sometimes when I present what I consider good compromise language it gets rejected. jbolden1517^Talk 12:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

1. You're trying to refight your old battles; I thought that the point here was to get past that, not to treat me simply as another editor joining in the debate.
2. No, you said that the introduction was biased; that's not the claim that it was "objectively wrong on the facts". --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

This definition I don't have any problem with.

I also am mostly satisfied with your version. However my major concern is the mentioning of the Ali counterpunch article, I am not sure that it is really notable and uncontroversial enough for a mention in the intro, is it possible to use a more neutral source in this instance?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Why does being "controversial" disqualify it from being mentioned in the lead? And Tariq Ali is a notable figure on the left - notable enough to have his own article, for instance. As has been pointed out earlier his article has appeared in a number of publications, not just Counterpunch. If you don't like Conterpunch being referenced for some reason we can reference another publication the same article has appeared in.Homey 14:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

That would be a start, but I still think there are a lot more neutral sources than Tariq Ali that could be used in its stead.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 16:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

That makes no sense - you want us to quote a "neutral" critic of NAS? If the opening is referencing a *critic* of the term then, by definition, that person isn't going to be neutral just as you aren't going to find any neutral proponents of the term. Read NPOV, you are confusing the neutrality of the article as a whole with the neutrality of sources. In cases where an idea is constested, as is NAS, NPOV one doesn't need to use all neutral sources, one must just ensure that sources supporting one POV are balanced out with sources supporting a contrary POV.Homey 16:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:Civility, your insolent tone is not helping your position. You seem to be intentionally misreading my argument. I never said that we have to use a completly neutral source for everything, I am saying we shoud use a more neutral or unbiased source. It is an extreme example, but would we use David Duke in an introductory paragraph about Judaism? Anyways I do not think we should use any specific article or individual to explain the criticism in the introduction, we should just explain the complaints in a general sort of way, and then go into more detail in the article's body.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 16:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

"I never said that we have to use a completly neutral source for everything, I am saying we shoud use a more neutral or unbiased source."

The principle remains the same NPOV does not require us to use "more neutral" or "unbiased" sources to source one side's POV ie NPOV does not mean you can't have POVs in the article, it just means those POVs must be sourced and should be balanced by countervaling POVs. That is the case in Mel's suggested opening. Your desire for a "neutral", "more neutral" or "unbiased" source for the view critical of NAS is not sustained by policy. I understand your desire to water down criticism of a concept you are defending but it is *that* that is not NPOV. Homey 16:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Your obviously assuming bad faith. Also, your basically claiming that any source is okay as long as it is properly sourced and relavent, which clearly is not the case as there are standards for what constitutes a reputable and reliable source. While I think that Ali generaly passes these requirements, I think that in an introduction we really should only use the most unbiased sources. Your argument about the representation of a POV is really only relavent with regards to the article's body.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 17:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to interject: The Tariq Ali article is fine for what it is, but I've long believed we should use a more scholarly text to represent NAS-opposition in the intro. I'd prefer replacing Ali with something from Brian Klug or Norman G. Finkelstein, personally.

(Btw, I finished reading Finkelstein's "Beyond Chutzpah" last week, and I now believe this should be required reading for anyone interested in this debate. The first third of the book is a scathing criticism of modern usage of the term "NAS", with extended criticisms of several titles written by NAS-proponents.) CJCurrie 21:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd be fine substituting a suitable Klug or Finkelstein quotation for Ali though I think Ali's comments belong somewhere in the article. Homey 21:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Suggested Finkelstein quotes (all taken from Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History):

The latest production of Israel's apologists is the "new anti-Semitism". [...] As it happens, the allegation of a new anti-Semitism is neither new nor about anti-Semitism. Thirty years ago, ADL national leaders Arnold Forster and Benjamin R. Epstein published to great fanfare a study entitled The New Anti-Semitism, and less than a decade later ADL national leader Nathan Perlmutter (with his wife, Ruth Ann Perlmutter) put out The Real Anti-Semitism in America, alleging yet again that the United States was awash in a new anti-Semitism. The main purpose behind these periodic, meticulously orchestrated media extravaganzas is not to fight anti-Semitism but rather to exploit the historical suffering of Jews in order to immunize Israel against criticism. Each campaign to combat the "new anti-Semitism" has coincided with renewed international pressures on Israel to withdraw from occupied Arab territories in exchange for recognition from neighbouring Arab states." (pp. 21-22)

How little the "real" anti-Semitism had to do with the genuine article and how much with criticism of Israeli policy could be gleaned from the Perlmutters' preference for the Christian right, which was steeped in anti-Jewish bigotry but "pro"-Israel, as against liberal Protestantism, which was free of anti-Jewish bigotry but "anti"-Israel: [an extended quote follows]." (p. 30)

What's currently called the new anti-Semitism actually incorporates three main components: (1) exaggeration and fabrication, (2) mislabeling legitimate criticism of Israeli policy, and (3) the unjustified yet predictable spillover from criticism of Israel to Jews generally. (p. 66)

CJCurrie 01:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Second version

I was slightly worried about retaining the two quotations; specific material like that can be introduced later in the article. How about this, then?

New anti-Semitism is the concept of an 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, which is held to be associated with certain left-wing political views. The adjective "new" is used to distinguish this form of anti-Semitism from the older, usually right-wing form. The term was used as early as 1974, but entered common usage to refer to a wave of anti-Semitism that escalated, particularly in Western Europe, after the Second Intifada in 2000, the failure of the Oslo accords, and the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington, DC.

Proponents of the concept argue that anti-Americanism, anti-Zionism, and opposition to the policies of the government of Israel are either coupled with anti-Semitism or disguised anti-Semitism. Critics of the concept argue that it serves to equate legitimate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism, and that it is sometimes used to silence debate.

--Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

As before, I'm inclined to accept this on principle while allowing for some further modifications/additions. CJCurrie 23:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll take it. Because its shorter my objections go away and can be explored in the main article. jbolden1517^Talk 23:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the article makes for a better read with quotations in the lead. If individuals are objecting to Ali could we find a quotation from Klug or Finkelstein?Homey 23:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The lead is a summary, and so details like specific quotations aren't realy appropriate; also, they're likely to provoke controversy (and can be included in appropriate places later in the article if that's acceptable). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll go with the second version then. I'd like the quotations (on both sides) worked into the body of the article though. Homey 18:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I can live with the second version too. Thanks, Mel. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back! jbolden1517^Talk 23:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

A couple little tweaks: 1) Anti-Jewish >> anti-Semitic, 2) and institutions, 3) usually >> traditionally (or typically if you prefer), 4) no need to mention locations for 9-11 attacks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

New anti-Semitism is the concept of an international resurgence of anti-Semitic incidents and attacks on Jewish symbols and institutions, as well as the acceptance of anti-Semitic beliefs and their expression in public discourse, which is held to be associated with certain left-wing political views. The adjective "new" is used to distinguish this form of anti-Semitism from the older, traditionally right-wing form. The term was used as early as 1974, but entered common usage to refer to a wave of anti-Semitism that escalated, particularly in Western Europe, after the Second Intifada in 2000, the failure of the Oslo accords, and the September 11, 2001 attacks.

There are several difficulties with the proposed version above:

1. "is the concept" implies that the article is about a concept and not about the phenomenon. But Wikipedia users would expect the phenomenon of new antisemitism to be discussed in the article called new anti-Semitism. Therefore this phrasing invites problems.

2. Minor point. It's not just "anti-Semitic beliefs" but also sentiments (i.e. hostility).

3. "held to be associated with certain left-wing political views." Anti-Zionism is not left-wing. Many right-wing people are also anti-Zionists. Hamas is definitely on the polical right, for example. I've already pointed out several times, with quotes and references, that many concepts of "new anti-Semitism" include various forms of right-wing anti-Zionism. There is also the whole issue of brown-red alliances.

4."The adjective 'new' is used to..." is either POV or OR. I would say that the adjective is used mainly for historical reasons, but that would similarly be POV or OR.

5. "The term was used" is also misleading, because the article is not about the phrase or term. It's about concepts (connotations) and the phenomena denoted by these concepts. The term "the new anti-Semitism" is the standard way of referring to contemporary anti-Semitism when it's associated with anti-Zionism. But it's also used in other contexts. The phrase as such has been used for at least a 100 years. Therefore we can't write "the term was used as early as 1974", because it's open to misunderstanding. Besides, the new anti-Semitism was discussed in a long article in the New York Times Magazine in 1971 and the term was used there. So why 1974?

6. "Common usage" is too vague. I think I used the same phrase about the early 1970s in an older version of this article. Perhaps "widespread" or something like that is better.

--Denis Diderot 07:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Denis Diderot makes some good points; in particular, this article is about a phenomenon, not a concept. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not quite what M. Diderot said. Notwithstanding that, I agree that he has raised some valid points, largely relating to the divergent usages of the term.

In the most general sense, "new anti-Semitism" has the same meaning as "contemporary anti-Semitism" (referring to any and all recent manifestations of anti-Semitism). In a more specific sense, however, the term has been used since 1974 (and especially since 2001) to identify modern occurrences of anti-Semitism as emanating from a particular theoretical framework.

The general meaning refers to a phenomenon. The specific meaning is theoretical and has been the subject of considerable debate; I would identify it as a "theory", but I'll settle for "concept" as a compromise term.

For all intents and purposes, the main body of this article is about the specific meaning. Accordingly, I believe that Mel's suggested introduction is appropriate to the information that follows ... although it may be necessary to add more information in order to clarify alternate meanings and usages.

Prior to 6 March 2006, the article's introduction distinguished between the general and specific meanings of the term. It may be useful to restore some of the information which was removed on that and other occasions. CJCurrie 01:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, would I be correct in assuming that Mel chose the word "concept" as a compromise between "fact" and "theory", endorsing neither but allowing for the possibility of each? CJCurrie 02:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

"Concept" is not something between "fact" and "theory". Is there someting wrong with the word "phenomenon"? If there is (I'd like to hear it), I offer "development" as a compromise. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Please read my comments again -- I didn't say "concept" was "between fact and theory", I said that it reserved judgement as to either. "Phenomenon" and "development" are both unacceptable, as they would effectively validate one side of the argument (although if you're willing to distinguish between general and specific meanings of the term, it might become acceptable.) CJCurrie 20:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Renaming article

Do Moshe, Humus and Jay support renaming this article New anti-Semitism (epithet)? Homey 06:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not, because it is a phenomenon rather than an epithet. List of political epithets contains political epithets used/misused for namecalling. As an example, the article Fascism describes the movement/phenomenon, while Fascism (epithet) deals with namecalling. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You have an article here called the 'New anti-Semitism' which lists 'Incidents in the United Kingdom' including the AUT boycott, Ken Livingstone and Galloway. This article does not discuss 'allegations' but appears to claim that all these people are objectively anti-Semitic, which is WP:OR. --Coroebus 09:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:Point if you haven't already, this article deals with a very real occurence instead of just the term itself. Also the article doesn't exactly refer to the aformentioned individuals as anti-semitic, it just uses sourced passages to tie their actions in with the term. There is nothing which indicates original research.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 16:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't support renaming it. The new anti-Semitism is a real phenomenon that serious researchers are studying, not just an insult. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

And here we come to the crux of the matter. Israeli apartheid mustn't be allowed because it isn't true, New anti-Semitism, which I repeat, lists events by named individuals under the title "incidents in the United Kingdom", not reporting them as incidents that some have claimed are examples of new anti-semitism with citations, but simply listing them as events with the implication that they are anti-semitic, these things really are anti-semitic, so it is ok. This distinction is fundamentally unencyclopaedic, and explains why it is utterly impossible to reach a negotiated consensus. Which is why I can't be bothered to contribute to these articles because I cannot WP:AGF. Re: WP:POINT, unlike others who I needn't mention, I don't go around moving articles or nominating them for deletion to prove a point, so please don't preach. I have simply pointed out (a) precedent, and (b) hypocrisy. To quote back WP:POINT at me is too too funny (oh SlimVirgin, Homey isn't seriously proposing it, he's pointing out double standards, so you don't need to vote) --Coroebus 16:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Give me a break, next time you decide to become all self-righteous and holier-than-thou, maybe you could at least pretend to speak from a npov. Homey created half a dozen articles just so he could create one extremely bias one along with a pov disambiguation page, they were nominated for deletion because of the same reasons almost every other article that is nominated for deletion is, they were either not notable enough, or stricly represented a single pov. Since Homey was able to contact scores of other editors (who have been conspicuously absent from every other article in the wider subject) he was able to keep most of the articles, changing the name was less reasonable than deleting the articles altogether but made more sense than leaving them as they were. So please next time you want to lecture someone, look at your own "side" first, lest your accusation of "hypocrisy" becomes extremely ironic.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 17:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't got a side. --Coroebus 17:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Of source, your completely neutral and unbias, how could I have forgotten.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Coroebus, sorry, I thought it was a real question. :-) The comparison with Israeli apartheid breaks down because there are no scholars who are studying "Israeli apartheid" as a real phenomenon. It's a term that is always used merely as a term of abuse, whereas "new anti-Semitism" is used as a descriptive term by academics. You're making a category mistake in comparing the two. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I don't think he's serious, but I could be wrong, there's been enough attempts to rename or move or whatever recently. I agree that adding '(epithet)' to New anti-Semitism would be silly (although I am serious that having had a look I think those lists of people/groups need cleaning up so that they aren't direct accusations by wikipedia), Islamofascism (epithet) on the other hand I'm not so sure about (although obviously I wouldn't rename it because I'm arguing against the use of adding '(epithet)' to something else, so it'd just be silly). --Coroebus 17:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Islamofascism (epithet), because there are no serious researchers who use the term in a descriptive way. There are journalists who have used it, but precious few. Words that are always and only used as insults should have (term) or (epithet) after them, but not where they point to areas of serious study. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I think Islamofascism (epithet) is fine too. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I support that too and I just moved Islamofascism to Islamofascism (epithet). Now need to take care of all the links... ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I fixed a few as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Best to discuss this on the Islamofascism pages. --Coroebus 06:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

HOTR

Homey, if you start this up again, I will take you to the arbcom and ask that they ban you from editing this article, and that they consider your abuse of your admin tools. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Which admin tools have I abused? The article isn't protected. All I've done is add a few qualifiers. Homey 20:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

SV, keep Wikipedia:Civility in mind. You should not blow up over changing "said" to "claimed", it's ridiculous. Homey 20:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Homey is an admin? Unbelievable. And scary. --Leifern 22:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You've been blocking people you're in content disputes with, and you've been blocked four times for 3RR in the last few weeks and once for disruption. If you try to start the nonsense again here, I am going to the arbcom, and I mean it.

Good editors don't change "said" to "claimed." Good editors do it the other way round. We don't have to agree to be able to collaborate well, but we do both have to be good editors. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Good editors don't throw temper tantrums over a minor editing dispute. Homey 22:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You call this a minor edit dispute? Editing on this page ground to a halt because of you. We needed mediation. Even then you didn't bother to respond, except to bicker. The page stayed protected for two months. Tony unprotected on condition the reverting wouldn't start up again. What do you do? On day on, start it up again. So should we request protection for the next two months to free up your time for all the reverting you do elsewhere? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, "said" vs "claimed" is a minor editing dispute. As for your accusations, you and Jay both went AWOL during the mediation and you never replied to CJCurrie's discovery that you had snuck in your POV into the article without ever mentioning it in the talk pages or the edit summaries. Homey 22:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Because of your AWOL you never answered any of the questions put to you nor any of the responses to your statement.

Copied from the mediation page:

The "New anti-Semitism" article had a significantly different introduction on 16 June 2005. This prior version distinguished the general phenomenon of "new anti-Semitism" from the specific theory of "New anti-Semitism", and noted the latter's controversial linkage of anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism.

Significant changes followed. I would draw the attention of readers to an edit from 09:01, 18 June 2005, which (i) seems to undermine the distinction between "new" and "New" anti-Semitism, and (ii) removes the phrase "This view presupposes a connection between the New anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism". Another editor later attempted to restore the distinction between "new" and "New", at which time the first editor reverted the page back to her version.

The introduction was then altered again on 25 December 2005 by an editor with a very limited posting history. This edit defines "NAS" more narrowly, though also noting that the term may be used in different ways to mean different things.

A subsequent edit on 3 January 2006 marks another significant change, including the first insertion of the phrase, "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." This is stated as a matter of fact, although the previous sentence indicates that this "new form" is only "alleged".

This edit from 5 March 2006 removes all reference to the general meaning of the term, and in so doing removes the distinction between "new" and "New" anti-Semitism. It also elevates the "NAS" from "a theory" to "a fact".

I am not certain that any of these changes were for the better -- the intro of 16 June 2005 seems far more lucid and balanced than that of 10 April 2006. I will also observe that the edit summaries (apart from that of 25 December) give little indication of the definitional changes. CJCurrie 22:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Would you care to comment on these changes? CJCurrie 22:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Since your back, maybe you can respond to CJCurrie's question?Homey 23:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

And SV, are you seriously claiming that you haven't been POV pushing in this article since you joined it? Complete from elevating NAS from a theory to a fact because that is your dearly held POV? You have absolutely no objectivity in this article or any article to do with Israel or Zionism. If anyone should recuse themselves, it's you. Homey 23:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe this. You're actually starting it all over again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, I'm not going to respond to baiting. Homey 23:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

No. I'm tired of this. I just think you lack perspective on certain issues and that it would help if you developed a tendency for self-criticism. Homey 23:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

And I think you need to take some responsibility for your own role in this conflict. You are not NPOV on this issue yet you behave as if you are and as if your POV is fact while everyone else should be dismissed. A good editor knows her biases, admits them and tries to compensate for them. Homey 23:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to recuse myself from this article for three months. You should consider recusing yourself as well and leaving it to other editors. Homey 23:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

At the very least, you should recuse yourself from Israeli apartheid where you and Jay have played the precise same role you accuse me of playing here. Homey 23:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought you were recusing yourself from the page?

I am going to archive this section now, because it's toxic. If Homey returns, I'll restore so he can continue it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)