User talk:SlimVirgin/NAS

Comments

Pgph. 1 need to stipulate somehow that what constitutes anti-Jewish incidents is also subject to subjectivity. The quote is good. Pgph. 2 uses the term "the older" as if the notion of "the new" was in fact fact. Remember the context of this topic is that its a controversial claim of a phenomenon distinct from not an accepted fact of a new and distinct phonemenon. This is about not just a claimed "resurgence" but a redefinition of "anti-Semitism" from something overt and right-wing to something subvert and left-wing. -Ste|vertigo 17:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stevertigo, thank you. Good point. Please bear this in mind, though: We're here to represent majority published opinion first, then significant-minority published opinion second. (We don't represent tiny-minority opinion except in articles devoted to that opinion, and we use only reliable sources). That is the NPOV policy.

Majority published opinion, among academics and good journalists, is that there is a new phenomenon: the unlikely alliance between the left, the far-right, and Islamism. You can see it on any globalization march, for example, or any Stop the War demonstration. Many, many people have written about it, including academic papers. So it isn't nothing; it isn't just an allegation; and for better or worse, it's called the New anti-Semitism.

Having said that, there is disagreement as to whether it is entirely new, and who is mostly involved, and which expressions or incidents are to count as NAS, and where the line is drawn between NAS and anti-Zionism, and so on, which I've tried to make clear in the article. So while your point above is well taken (about the use of the word "old," which I agree with), it's important not to take it too far.

This isn't just a political epithet like, say, Israeli apartheid or Islamofascism (where, yes, there is discrimination in Israel, but it's not a system of apartheid and no one argues that it really is; or where, again, there are fascistic strains within Islamism, but they don't constitute fascism, and no one argues that they really do).

The NAS, on the other hand, is regarded by many serious scholars as being very real and quite different from old forms of anti-Semitism. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intro

I recommend the following changes:

(i) Change the current proposed wording to: "It has been identified by some proponents as coming from simultaneously from three directions [...] Others have used the term more narrowly to refer to anti-Semitic activities enamating from particular groups and ideologies."

(Reason: Not all "NAS"-proponents define the term as "left + right + Islam". Also, adding a quote in the intro belabours the flow somewhat.)

(ii) We should not describe the "old" anti-Semitism as exclusively right-wing, as it wasn't.

(iii) If we are to expand the "proponents" section, we should also expand the "opponents" section. CJCurrie 03:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have no problem with that, though you might want to be more precise about "emanating from particular groups and ideologies." I do like the kaleidoscope quote, because it sums up the concept very well. Would you be okay with leaving that one in? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry, there was only one; I was getting confused. So it's the kaleidoscope quote you'd prefer to leave out? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responses: (i) I would be willing to reword my suggested addition as "emanating from particular groups and ideologies, frequently from the left-wing of the political spectrum", (ii) the problem with the "kaleidoscope" quote is that it privileges one interpretation of "NAS", which is not accepted by all proponents of the term, (iii) more generally, I believe we agreed during mediation that it would be best to remove all quotes from the intro. CJCurrie 04:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sounds good to me. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concept?

I realize this has met with some kind of consensus, but I still think it's a bit of a misleading weasel word. I think "term" would be adequate, but I'm willing to be convinced that phenomenon or something like that would work. --Leifern 18:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concept was agreed with the mediator. Phenomenon suggests it exists; term suggests the article is about the phrase. Concept seemed like a good compromise. It is undoubtedly a concept that academics and governments are working with to make sense of certain events that would otherwise make no sense — in particular, the apparent alliance between the left, the far right, and Islamists. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe "concept" is the only term that is acceptable to all parties, and I don't think there's any compelling need to change it. CJCurrie 20:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]