Talk:New antisemitism/Archive 7

If the content wasn't such garbage, I would hang that in my living room, seriously, who is the artist? --Tom 02:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Does anybody know who zombie is and should he be referenced? Is that web site considered a reliable source per Wiki? Also, I am serious about wanting to know who the artist is. Please do not delete this section. I think the content/message is abhorent, as stated above. Thanks. --Tom 16:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The copyright holder (the photographer) specifically stated I would like the credit to read "Photo by zombie, www.zombietime.com" or some variation thereof, such as "Photo by zombie of zombietime.com" or "Photo by zombie" with the word zombie being a hyperlink to zombietime.com. I did so. You changed it. Can you fix that please? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

(inserted into thread) Jayjg, I reverted back the caption but like my version better. Is saying a photo came from "zombie" very encyclopediactic? I am mean this is just a picture for an EXAMPLE. The article could use ANY of 1,000s of photos depicting NAS it seems that are better sourced. As mentioned, the pictute IS striking and does make a good point of the hate/scum involved, IMHO of course :) Cheers! --Tom 17:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Zombietime is part of the right-wing blogosphere. He posts images from anti-War rallys the "MSM doesn't want you to see." He has a repository of Muhammad images such as these . Here is his gallery on Flick , of "Naked Moonbats." He is a member of this group blog "Little Green Colloquium" (associated it seems with Little Green Footballs). He is a proponent of the recent "fauxtography" fad in the right wing blogosphere and is fairly angry at MSM/Reuterse/CNN. His Mohammad archive, especially the recent stuff such at the link I included, contains a lot of what I consist to be racist and hateful. He focuses on and highlights on the faults of others while being blind to his own. He is a "culture warrior." --Ben Houston 16:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Hard to say, actually: this person seems to enjoy displaying photographs with concise labels as a powerful way of criticism. In this light, what we see at might be understood as a very strong form of self-criticism. Rama 16:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Um, that's fascinating, Ben. Were you thinking of starting a Wikipedia article on him? I'm not getting why this would be relevant in this article. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no Chomsky/Buchanan axis, they are not Communist/Fascist, and they are not part of a "Red/Brown" alliance. Why is this allowed to be included, when FALSE? The quote is unreliable, and it hasn't been fact-checked. We cannot merely link to a "quote" and then say therefore "it's reliable", especially when they are false, biased or mere soap-box. Also, I'd like to see some verification that neo-nazis are wearing Palestinian headresses. That's hyperbole and sensationalism from a journalist, not an encyclopedic source or quote. Please do not reinsert false statements and/or biased sources and quotes. Thanks.Myung1 18:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

We quote what reliable sources say, whether we agree with them or not. The source doesn't say either of these people are communist or fascist. Don't removed sourced material and especially don't change a quote, as one of your edits did. Please review WP:V. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

That source and quote are unreliable, please review WP:RS. .Myung1 18:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Please explain what makes the sources unreliable. Please be specific. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I see what you are doing, you appear to want to quote the hyperbole of a Jewish American journalist, have the unsourced material and outright unverifiable content from it disguised as more or less fact in this article. I think that's not the best way to build a good article, but I see how it kinda fits within the rules, technically. Nobody wants to delete the entire source, but out of the entire linked article [], why should we include the author's exceptionally unverified parts from it? Is that the best idea? How many lines does this author deserve in the subject article, more or less? but why include info from him that are Exceptional Claims instead of including the more legit material from that source?Myung1 19:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Are we to understand that Jewish sources you disagree with are ipso facto unreliable? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stop wasting my time. That is not what I said. Schoenfeld should not be assumed to be true just because he's Jewish. He has no proof of a Chomsky/Buchanan axis based on Red-green-brown alliance and neither do you. Improving the content of the article is what you could focus on, instead of sticking up for unverifible quotes supporting conspiracy theories and propaganda and Chomsky/Buchanan hatred. Myung1 21:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

"Chomsky/Buchanan hatred"? Is that some of well known syndrome? Are the groups or websites devoted to it? In any event, you're the one who mentioned that Schoenfeld was a "Jewish American journalist" as if it was significant. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

We should not merely copy or link verbatim to unrelibale and biased sources and quotes especially when they are patently false with no fact-checking. The mere fact the aticle links to them does not make them reliable or their comments verifiable. We should try to build an article that doesn't get into "conspiracy-theory-land" like the "Chomsky-Buchanan axis" which doesn't even exist.

WP:RS says "Certain red flags should prompt editors to closely and skeptically examine the sources for a given claim."

• Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known.
• Surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by reputable news media.
• Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended.
• Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.

I'd like SlimVirgin to skeptically examine and find third-party verification WP:V for the Chomsky/Buchanan Red/Brown axis or something from another more reputable source that would back these quotes up. They are false and unreliable, and do not merit being included. Furthermore, they mislead people. Thanks.Myung1 19:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Myung1, (un)fortunately, your opinion about what constitutes reliable sources is not what determines things around here. --Leifern 19:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Leifern, you are mistaken. The above text comes from Wikipedia policy WP:RS. Do you see reliablility or verifiability in these quotes or the source? Controversial comments could be verified and reliable. The items you want to include are neither. Why do you think that info should be included, when it's unreliable and unverified? That's against WP policy, as well as being false anyway. Please help build a good article. Thanks. Myung1 19:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS is a guideline, not a policy, and the policy it supports (WP:V) states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." These quotes verifiably come from reliable sources - the fact that you think they are incorrect is immaterial. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Why include that "quote" ("Palestinian headresses are worn by neo-nazis"), when there are more verifiable, better and credible quotes from the same source? It seems crazy and non-encyclopedic to pick only that from his article, an item that is exceptional and has no thrid-party back up. Myung1 19:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The quote makes an abstract idea tangible. What other quote would you have preferred? Gimmetrow 20:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

If confuses the reader and tangibly misleads. Chomsky is not Communist and not part of a "Red/Brown" alliance or axis, neither is Buchanan. If this one Jewish barely mainstrem journalist says so, I guess it makes it into this article and it appears in a format that is POV but disguised as "fact". It's sneaky anti-Chomsky and Buchanan hatred. I'm merely suggesting that if we are to include quotes from these types of journalists, Jewish commentators, etc. why cannot we at a minimum choose more appropriate and accurate quotes from them that are mainstream and third-party verifiable? The way the article portrays their one-off quotes, it disguises them as bona-fide fact and practically serves as propaganda. Why highlight any quotes which we know are outlandish, and not try to be NPOV when we do include them or condition them? Myung1 20:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Chomsky certainly has his critics and has been called anti-semitic. It's not POV to state that X says Y about Chomsky. It may be POV if X is not much of an authority, or the selection of quotes gives undue weight to some particular view. You can always find other quotes if you like. Gimmetrow 20:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The quote doesn't say Chomsky is a communist. These objections are entirely spurious. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Your personal opinion regarding Chomsky et al is fascinating, but on Wikipedia we rely on verifiable material quoted from reliable sources. The source of the opinion is clearly stated, and just because you disagree with something doesn't mean it is confusing or misleading. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, we should be clear that the OPINION is just that, and provide accuracy, not a soapbox for conspiracy theories and propaganda. Schoenfeld cannot prove his opinion, and neither can you. You support fringe opinions on Wikipedia, congratulations, perhaps you could consider your personal opinion. Myung1 21:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It's specifically attributed directly to Schoenfeld; it's hard to understand what more you could want. I don't have a personal opinion on the matter, I just follow policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone help to rewrite this stuff from a "verfiable and reliable" source? Can someone post the article it comes from, and the context withi it in which Schoenfeld equates Chomsky and Buchanan with violent radicals? I think his words might be taken out of context and misplaced here in the Wikipedia article. Did this Schoenfled actually say this? Can someone link to the actual article?

"Gabriel Schoenfeld, senior editor of Commentary magazine, writes that: "Among those burning the Star of David and chanting obscene slogans against the Jewish state in the streets of Europe, there are surely some neo-Nazis; but a greater host of environmentalists, pacifists, anarchists, anti-globalists, and socialists." [49] Schoenfeld calls it a "Red-Brown alliance," and includes in it commentators such as Pat Buchanan and Noam Chomsky, both strong critics of the State of Israel. [49] Myung1 20:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The article is linked, and your bad faith regarding the inclusion of this material is astonishing, and you have violated WP:3RR. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, you exhibity the bad faith but cannot see it I guess, and you should assume good faith in others. Chomsky and Buchanan are not in any Red/Brown axis. That's all I'm saying. There is no link to verify what Schoenfeld actually stated either, or you would produce it. To highlight this supposed axis, not linked or verified, is bad faith from Shoenfeld, and you support that for some reason, that's quite telling. I have not violated 3RR.Myung1 21:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Myung, you're being disruptive. We don't need to know what you think about Chomsky and Buchanan. We need only know what the source says. That's what "verified" means. Have you edited Wikipedia before with another user name or as an anon? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Now Slim, why would you ask that? Just because he moves around and edits with greater ease than ol me who has been in here only since Dec. and has less than 2,000 edits? :) --Tom 21:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I don't know what came over me. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not what "I think" it's about truth and accuracy and building a good encyclopedia, and not providing a soap-box for propaganda and conspriacy theories. You cannot provide any back-up nor a link, to substantiate that one particular non-mainstream author's opinion, which is also patently false, otherwise you could provide just one other source to verify it, but you cannot. It's hard to assume good faith when you're surrounded by everything else but. How many more false comments can this article link to, and call them verifiable and reliable? I see how it works now. See you round the campus!! Myung1 21:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Myung1, there is another way to look at this: SlimVirgin and Jayjg, who are strong proponents of this concept, are acting as gatekeepers on this article and are forcing it to say at a sophmoric level. They are ensuring the article covering a concept they seem to want to push remains unscientific and filled with hyperbole as the above -- it is a fact that a large number of people reading the article people notice this. SV and Jayjg are in fact reducing the credibility of the concept by holding on to the current sophmoric presentation. Its sad really. I think SV and Jayjg act the way they do because they believe in the concept and anyone that criticizes the current state of the article appears to them to be one of those crypto-anti-Semites the article talks about. This is why they act unfair, because they think that underneath you are unfair. Its a self-reinforcing cycle -- if you react to their unfair behavior, you reinforce they prejudices. It has been going on for a very long while. Instead of attacking SV and Jayjg for their behavior, you should, more correctly, pitty them. --Ben Houston 18:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, the article has 136 separate references, many of them scholarly, in some cases representing the views of senior, well-known scholars who've been studying in this area all their adult lives, and who are at the top of their professions. And not one of those references has either been added, or read, by you or Myung. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

You are missing the point SlimVirgin. The existance of reputable references is irrelevant to the fact that you are behaving as a self-appointed gatekeeper on the article and are disallowing people to easily improve what is currently a sophmoric presentation of the research in those references. You are also regularly exhibiting prejudiced against others, just now you said "not one of those references has either been added, or read, by you or Myung." In fact I read quite a few of them two week ago in preparation for editing this article and did my own searches for references. I even, would you believe, took multiple pages of notes. --Ben Houston 22:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Which ones have you read? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the fact that you and Myung only refer to "the truth" (or at least your versions of it) shows that not allowing you to run free around this article is probably the prudent course of action. We cannot allow people to delete sourced information because it does not fit in with their world view.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I suppose this critic from a quite reknown publication (Race and Class, Sage Publications) should be included in the critics section, but I also believe that the views held here are so commonplace that they should have a prominent place in the article itself. It is basically a review of the book "a new anti-semitism" but it also critizises the use of the "phenomenon" to critizise and attack people who critizise Israel.

Link to exerpt: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&se=gglsc&d=5006659118&er=deny

Some quotes: The whiff of witch-hunt People carry the virus. Hence the book's many and repeated ad hominem attacks, which make for particularly unpleasant reading. This is the first time in the UK that such an ugly 'hit-list' of anti-Semitic 'carriers' has been published. And it includes not just obvious targets like Professor Steven Rose, the organiser of a scientific and academic boycott of Israel, and Tom Paulin, who has written pro-Palestinian poetry, but a host of others, from Archbishop Tutu and Milan Kundera to Louis de Bernieres and Irvine Welsh, who have expressed disquiet at the treatment of the Palestinians.

Thus the new anti-Semitism or Judeophobia, as the editors would have it, is reduced to a catch-all phrase that covers anything from views on international politics to the careless use of words or images. Such a simplification, alas, blunts our capacity to take on a complex issue.

In a sense, A New Antisemitism? and the whole discourse it reflects are born of defeat: Israel is no longer seen as the victim nation, it no longer commands the sympathy or has the leeway it once did in the popular imagination. (17) The striking out by Jewish commentators, with their fixation on a new anti-Semitism, is a reaction to that knowledge, a mad scrabbling about to regain lost ground. pertn 21:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that, Pertn. This is a review by Jenny Bourne of A New Anti-Semitism?, a book I've been trying to get hold of for two years; every time I order it, I get a note a few weeks later saying there's been a problem with the order, so I don't know whether it's out of print or what. What specific point does Bourne make about new anti-Semitism (as opposed to about this book) that isn't already in the article? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean the "hit list" aspect? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure that the writer has a relevant background. This is the only publication I can find for her, and it's a pamphlet about feminism. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Besides her one "pamplet" (it seems to be a semi-research paper more than anything else - it has a lot of citations) on "Homelands of the mind: Jewish feminism and identity politics", she had a bunch of other publications accessible via Google Scholar: . Her area seems to be feminism, racism/race relations, and literary criticism. Here is another book she published . Another book she edited is here . Her homepage is here: . A good question would be is the journal a quality one? --Ben Houston 22:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I saw her but how do you know it's the same person? And if it is, how is a background in Eng lit and feminism relevant? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually they are different people. Here is Jenny Bourne's bio "Jenny Bourne is a sociologist who has written and lectured on the sociology of race relations, and an activist in the women's and anti-racist movements. She was a member of 'Women Against Racism and Fascism' and 'Women in Black', and has written 'Towards an anti-racist feminism' and 'Homelands of the Mind: Jewish feminism and Identity Politics'. She is a founder member of the collective that currently produces CARF (the Campaign Against Racism and Fascism, (http://www.carf.demon.co.uk). She has acted as consultant to educational initiatives on anti-racism from those of the GLC (Greater London Council) and the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work to the Homebeats CDROM. She works as a senior researcher at the Institute of Race Relations (IRR) (http://www.irr.org.uk). At the IRR, her most recent publications are 'Counting the Cost: Racial Violence since MacPherson' (2001) and “The Life and Times of Institutional Racism,” in 'The Three Faces of British Racism' (2001)." from . I did a more precise Google Scholar search here -- she has a fair number of publications/citations . --Ben Houston 23:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

There are several aspects that could be added (or where this article could be a good extra source). The Hit-list or Macartyism aspect. Her analysis of it as a response to reagain lost sympathy. But also the fact that a quite reknown researcher in studies of racism dismisses it as a politically motivated concept that "is reduced to a catch-all phrase that covers anything from views on international politics to the careless use of words or images. Such a simplification, alas, blunts our capacity to take on a complex issue." I had not heard of JB before I saw this article yesterday, but I believe she is a researcher here: http://www.irr.org.uk/about/index.html pertn 10:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Bhouston, do not add your own opinion to this article. I asked you above which of the sources you had read. Could you answer please? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not feel I was adding my own opinion but I understand how you percieve things. Argh... I have instead linked "Jewish lobby" to the new Israel lobby in the United States -- a new article that covers the non-conspiratoral aspects of this ethnic lobby, although it should be expanded to mention the anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists and direct readers to the appropriate articles on anti-Semitism for that aspect. (I also created Arab lobby in the United States if that is of interest.)

In regards to your question, I do not feel that I need to prove to you that I am worthy of editing the article -- if you incorrectly percieve this as avoidance or deciete on my part so be it -- if this further angers you, I apologize, but from my perspective you are asking for me to submit unnecessarily to your gatekeeping and overall attempt to be dominant, that really doesn't jive with my personality and shouldn't be required of me anyways. --Ben Houston 02:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

You were the one who said you had read the main sources, so I asked which ones. I'm taking your reply to mean you haven't. I urge you to do so if you want to edit the article. This is unfortunately the kind of article that everyone thinks they can express an opinion about, but we're here to try to write in an informed way, and that requires research. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

You, SlimVirgin, are presenting me with a choice of either continuing to submit to your gatekeeping and general dominance or have you accuse me of lying because you want to assume the worst -- do you see that from my perspective this choice is a no-win proposition? Your latest accusation rings false anyhow, you just played this game of attacking my honor in order to achieve dominance two days ago. --Ben Houston 02:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

See, in your shoes, I would just say: "I've read X and Y, and I've just started Z, and then I hope to find time to look at A, B, and C." I think that's what most people would answer if they were genuinely interested, were engaged in research, and were serious about making an intelligent contribution, as opposed to being a nuisance. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, now that we understand our mutual differences in style, I think it is clear that we have the same goals - a quality article about the concept of New Anti-Semitism. I'm calling it a night but let's get on with more serious, verifiable and non-original improvements tomorrow and see how it goes. There should be some middle ground here now that we understand where each other are coming from. --Ben Houston 03:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Please note how much time these pointless exchanges consume. I have to say I think this will be my last response. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. --Ben Houston 04:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

It's an article about a single article - the rest of its contents are original research on your part. As well, your claim that "Jewish lobby" is the same thing as Bard's take on the "Israel lobby in the United States" is POV original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

That article, the Israel lobby in the United States, is very closely sourced to an article written by Mitchell G. Bard, the executive director of a foundation that promotes the US-Israel relationship and also runs the Jewish Virtual Library. The article is hosted on the JVL as well. Understanding subjects like these demystifies them. I also wrote one on the Arab lobby in the United States based on the same source. They are really stubs for the moment, I need to find additional sources. --Ben Houston 04:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

It's an article about a single article - the rest of its contents are original research on your part. As well, your claim that "Jewish lobby" is the same thing as Bard's take on the "Israel lobby in the United States" is POV original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain what you mean in this sentence "It's an article about a single article - the rest of its contents are original research on your part" when you are referring to "the rest of its contents are original research on your part." That article is so closely sourced right now that I don't know what you are talking about.

Also, I am not saying that the article describes what the anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists are talking about any more than the linked word to Israel just before it is saying there is truth to that shit about Israel. But those conspiracies are extreme and hateful distortions of a real lobby though, just like conspiracies about Israel are extreme and hateful distortions of a real country. This perspective is why I linked it. Demystifying things to reality makes people more able to see and refute the racist distortions. --Ben Houston 05:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I will refrain from reverting warring -- there are better ways to handle this. I will start to incorporate how some distort the actions of the lobby into anti-Semitism conspiracies into the linked article. That may make you feel better about that article. Best. --Ben Houston 05:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The term "Jewish lobby" is not synonymous with "Israel lobby in the United States"; that's a very American-centric view. Various "Jewish lobbies" are alleged to exist in France, the U.K., Canada, etc. Moreover, the term is widely used by anti-Semitic sources, and "Jewish lobbies" are accused of influencing all sorts of things besides Israel - Hollywood, civil rights, etc. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we both agree that the new "Jewish lobby" article is a good compromise. I have linked that in. Best. --Ben Houston 19:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added a purely descriptive caption to the image, not saying that it's an example of anti-Semitism or that anyone said it was (but adding refs to some who did). It now says: "Photographed at an anti-war rally in San Francisco on February 16, 2003, this placard mixes anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist, and anti-globalization imagery with some classic anti-Semitic motifs. Photograph taken by zombie of zombietime.com."

As that is pretty well a definition of new anti-Semitism, it's clearly appropriate. I thought of adding a quote from an academic to that effect, but in fairness to the artist, it's probably best to leave out any editorializing.

I've seen a few other examples of the artist's work, which confirm his interest in these themes. That anti-Semitic motifs are in the image says nothing about the artist's intention, which we don't know, so I felt this was the fairest and most neutral way to write the caption. Constructive feedback would be appreciated. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Slim, do you know the artists name or any other details? Do you have a link to his other works? TIA --Tom 19:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll e-mail you about that, Tom, if you have an e-mail address in your preferences. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I've found a couple of mainstream sources discussing this image in terms of new anti-Semitism, so I may add a bit more to the caption. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• A descriptive caption answers my concerns. I assume it helps the reader by adding context. Looks as neutral as one can get while still adding context to my mind.--Arktos ^talk 22:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• There is no doubt that this caption is a vast improvement over what the caption read previously. The citations have added quite a bit although, besides the source I only saw one that actually directly discussed the image itself. A central point in the image that isn't mentioned (perhaps it doesn't need to) is that it's anti-Israel <-> U.S. as well as anti-Americanist. (→Netscott) 14:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Then you haven't read the sources. They're there because they mention the image. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually I read them and yes the image is included and/or mentioned but besides Zombietime there's only one other page that actually discusses it. Mentioning and discussing aren't the same. The FrontPage mag. essentially repeats Zombie's commentary, The Santa Cruz Sentinel has the Holocaust survivor mentioning it and the Windsofchange tacks the image onto an article that discusses the return of anti-Semitism (it's addition there is essentially just a citation of FrontPage). Essentially none of the citations mentions "new anti-Semitism"... which inclines one to glance over at Wikipedia:No original research. (→Netscott) 16:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Two of the sources discuss it in terms of new anti-Semitism (the new wave of anti-Semitism, or whatever they call it). Look, I'm not going to carry on arguing with you. I see no good faith in your editing, and you use a bizarre interpretation of our NOR policy (your own OR, in fact), so there's just no point. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact that A.N.S.W.E.R. is the author of the poster warrants being mentioned in the caption SlimVirgin. Wikipedia readers should be able to read the article on this group to establish the validity (or not) of the poster. (→Netscott) 09:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

That Wikipedia even has an article about that group means something. (→Netscott) 09:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

We don't know who made the poster. I'm in the process of looking into that, as I said already. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Would you kindly restore that wikilink? The www.jpost.com article you used to reference that image states as much. I think we can both agree that the Jerusalem Post is a reliable source. (→Netscott) 09:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, please stop questioning every single thing I do. It is not a journalist with the JP who wrote that; it is on the newspaper's blog. I am in the process of finding out who the artist is. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine, all that I ask in return is that you discuss removing content that I add before you do (which so far you have refused to do). (→Netscott) 09:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Nothing gets through to you. I had already said on this page that I was in the process of finding out who the artist was. I then told you again four times; I believe this is the fifth. Yet still you have to revert. Because you know better again, don't you? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

As you not doubt know Wikipedia:Reliable sources do not recognize personal blogs. But we should both be in agreeance that blogs found on the sites of http://www.jpost.com/ (an organization very liable in terms of court pursuit) are of a different class. If that is the case then my edit should stand. (→Netscott) 09:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Also I'd appreciate if you'd at least read edit summaries as I stated as much when I edited in that wikilink. (→Netscott) 09:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

And why did you shorten the Wikilink to the the anti-war rally in San Francisco? As it stands now the wikilink looks like it leads to an article on anti-war rallies. (→Netscott) 09:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

There was too much blue. Makes it hard to read. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Does my logic make sense about how the wikilink now merely looks like it's to an article about anti-war rallies then? (→Netscott) 09:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It is a pity that I have to cite policy in order for my good faith edits to stand but here goes. From Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Evaluating_reliability:

Below this are sources which, while not tangible, can be providers of reliable information in some cases, for example websites and blogs, particularly those associated with reliable sources of information. For example, the blog of an academic department is not merely a personal blog, but should be looked at in the totality of the source.

SlimVirgin would you kindly stop edit warring and restore my Wikilink in good faith? (→Netscott) 09:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

This is my last response to you. For the sixth time — the source is a blogger. I am in the process of looking into who created the poster. The policy is not WP:RS. It is WP:V. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok I'll assume good faith on your part and ask how is a blogger for a respected news organization like the The Jerusalem Post (BEN-ZION JAFFE) is not a verifiable source? Please don't forget that it was yourself who added this reference. (→Netscott) 10:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

A source can be acceptable in some instances but unacceptable in others, this is especially true with bloggs, even if the person is affiliated with a reputable and reliable source with their day job, when the author is using an independant blog it is entirely different does superman speak for the daily bugle? (I just made that name up since I have no idea what newspaper Clark Kent actually works for).- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course and WP:RS allows for that (as I illustrated above). Please note that this Jerusalem Post blog is not "independent", one can be sure that the editors of Jerusalem Post exercise considerable control over what goes into the blogs found on their site. (→Netscott) 12:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I will not be so certain. Most newspapers that host a blog, are very clear in stating that they do not excerise editoril control on blogs they host. You can't, and it is not possible... die to the nature of the medium. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, BackSpin the weblog of Honest Reporting is attributing the poster to A.N.S.W.E.R. as well. (→Netscott) 15:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand this strange discussion at all. Who made the poster is clearly no secret. He is a very well-known graffiti artist in the Bay Area. --Denis Diderot 14:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Who is that then? (→Netscott) 14:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, when Tom asked: "Slim, do you know the artists name or any other details?", she answered: "I'll e-mail you about that, Tom". So perhaps there is some reason why we shouldn't post his name here that I don't know about. --Denis Diderot 16:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well that's fine then all that's needed in the caption is proper attribution to A.N.S.W.E.R. as being the organization that "sponsored it" (ie: by A.N.S.W.E.R.) thereby permitting Wikipedia readers the opportunity to easily better inform themselves about that organization. (→Netscott) 16:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Several organizations sponsored the rally, if that's what you mean. Not just ANSWER, but also BAUAW, NION, and UFPJ. --Denis Diderot 17:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well there's two indepedent and reliable sources specifically attributing that poster to A.N.S.W.E.R. The Jerusalem Post blog and Honest Reporting's BackSpin weblog. (→Netscott) 17:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

They are not independent, they used the same source, and it was just because the posters were near the ANSWER banner. She wrote herself that "I'm not sure they were actually marching as part of any group." --Denis Diderot 17:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm not following you. Jpost.com says, "The group that put out the poster was InternationalAnswer. A.N.S.W.E.R. is an anti-war group whose name means Act Now to Stop War and End Racism." and BackSpin says, "This is the placard prominently displayed by the main organizers of the rally, International A.N.S.W.E.R.:". Which link has the line you're talking about? (→Netscott) 18:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The link is here. The artist has been accused of anti-Semitism before. He has stated that he isn't anti-Jewish but against Zionism and capitalism. --Denis Diderot 20:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Pertn, Bourne is not a notable enough source to be used in the lead section, and unless she has something new to say about it, not anywhere else either. She's an unknown sociologist who specializes in feminism. Look at all the excellent potential sources in the Further reading section whose material is not referenced in the lead section, or anywhere else in the case of some of them. You'll have to make a case as to why Bourne's book review is better than any of those. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I used the source as an example. (I tried to explain to you earlier why it was hard to source the lack of scolarly interest in the concept.) It is a review of one of the key books promoting the idea of NAS. It is in a well known publication (Race and class). Published by a major publisher. She works for a well known research institute, dedicated to studies racism. (and we do agree that there is some semblance between Anti-Semitism and racism, don't we?). She is jewish, and has published several anti-zionist articles. As for the researcher specializing in feminism, I think someone else mentioned earlier here that it's probably a case of mistaken identity (JB Taylor), though JB has also published something about feminism and jewish identity and so on.

"Jenny Bourne is researcher into race policy at the Institute of Race Relations and the author of Homelands of the mind: Jewish feminism and identity politics (IRR, 1987)."

Anyway, she is not one that must be quoted (who are really?) and I don't subscribe to all her opinons. Maybe it shouldn't be in the lead section, though I feel it is a bit out of balance... Maybe I should try to make another compromise to get a more balanced article here. But something tells me that would be time wasted. I'll not interfere anymore pertn 18:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, did you really read what BHuston wrote about her in the "critics that should be added" section? pertn 11:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Pertn - it may be time to use start the dispute resolution process. SlimVirgin on this article has established herself as a de facto gatekeeper. If she has decided against you here, which seems likely, you can either fight it out in an edit war (which is not recommended) or you can start the dispute resolution process. The first step is to seek an outside opinion via the RfC mechanism. I would suggest writing up a draft of exactly what you want to include and specify where. Make it it's own section here on the talk page and then request an outside opinion stating that the discussion has reached a stalemate. There are not two separate sets of rules, one for SlimVirgin and one for the rest of us, she just is being aberrant here. --Ben Houston 02:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I partly agree with you, but I also respect the fact that she and other editors have a better knowledge of the material cited here and the rules of WP than me. So I think I'll leave it there, and assume that they know what they are doing, and that they're doing it in good faith. Saves a lot of work as well. :) pertn 07:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this may be a hoax. It is cited to http://christianactionforisrael.org/antiholo/ml_king.html. At the bottom of that page it says "From M.L. King Jr., "Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend," Saturday Review_XLVII (Aug. 1967), p. 76. Reprinted in M.L. King Jr., "This I Believe: Selections from the Writings of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr."" I can't find anything about this book, and some other websites (of uncertain reliability themselves) say that though he expressed the sentiment in a speech, there was no such letter. Maybe someone else can find out for sure. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

This isn't my area of specialty, but it doesn't seem that relevant to "New Anti-Semitism" but rather either Anti-Semitism or Anti-Zionism. Maybe people working on those articles would be more knowledgeable about it. Also you could ask on the MLK Jr article talk page if his article doesn't already mention this letter of his. If it is a hoax as you are claiming, that should be noted on the MLK Jr article or elsewhere so that people don't have to repeatedly establish that. --Ben Houston 02:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a brief discussion of the letter on the MLK talk page. The letter is almost certainly a hoax, but the quote “When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You're talking anti-Semitism” is not. If someone is looking to include that quote within the article it can be backed by multiple sources independent of the letter.EricR 01:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

CAMERA, a pro-Israel organization, says it's a hoax so it almost certainly is one. Deuterium 03:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Sticking to the narrow question as expressed in the RfC, I'd regard a blogger for a respected news source as about the equivalent to a columnist for a respected news source. Hence, satisfactory for WP:V and WP:RS although not the most desirable citation and prone to supplanting by better sources such as academic experts. Durova 17:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I agreed, and would like to add that an RfC on this issue is entirely in order. --Xosa 19:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Now the question is wether or not the name of the artist (Senay Dennis) should be included in the caption to faciliate readers' ability to find out more about his art and viewpoints? This information is already included on the image so including it in the caption would just reduce a click for readers. Ideally who the artist is who the organizer of the event the image is associated with (A.N.S.W.E.R.) and who is saying it is an example of new anti-Semitism should be readlily available to the reader. In particular who is saying the image is anti-Semitic should be included so that the article doesn't fall afoul of WP:BLP relative to the artist Senay Dennis. (ŮNetscott) 20:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You have become obsessed with this caption and image. For the record, you're continuning to try to have it deleted on the grounds that it still doesn't fit the image policies, though it clearly does. You put up an RfC on whether to include ANSWER in the caption, even though we know the artist's name and we have no evidence at all that he's connected to ANSWER. Furthermore, ANSWER were not the only organizers of this protest.

I have contacted the artist to ask him inter alia whether, and if so how, he wants to be credited in the caption. Until I have an answer from him, please leave the issue alone. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Can we ask what might be the reason that an editor might want to contact an artist to get his/her permission to be credited for their art on this article? (ŮNetscott) 22:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, why don't you read that question to yourself to see if the answer isn't self-evident? --Leifern 00:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Why not give it a few days and see if the artist answers? There is no deadline. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

User:SlimVirgin is very cognizant of the very real concerns there are here about the artist Senay Dennis with regards to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons right down to changing the name of the image she originally uploaded from Image:NewASAnti-Semiticposter.jpg to Image:AntiWarRallyFeb162003.jpg. This is further illustration that the edits I speak of above are very necessary. (ŮNetscott) 01:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The only reason I can think of for getting in touch with the poster's creator would be to find out his intent in making the drawing, there is no need to get his permission to post the photo here. I have said this countless times but I'll say it again, from a legal standpoint Senay Dennis doesn't even enter the equation, the permission of the person who took the photograph is all that matters.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg, yes that is understood but Wikipedia is not following the direction of the legal advisor you've spoken with but by its own policies. (ŮNetscott) 01:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

That's right, and Wikipedia's policies are not equivalent to your idiosyncratic interpretation of them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Avoiding idiosyncratic interpretation of policy applies to everyone. --Xosa 14:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

So does not trolling. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The article is getting long, so it might be a good idea to discuss which sections we might be able to remove. Do people have any ideas about that? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

My first option would be to remove the sections that aren't about NAS. // Liftarn

And they are? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Old anti-Semitism and muslim anti-Semitism. // Liftarn

Do you mean the section called "The far right and Islamism?" If so, that's impossible. Please be serious. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't suggest we should move an entire section, but trim (and possibly move) parts that are not about NAS. // Liftarn

Which parts of that section do you think are not about NAS? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

We could move everything that is strictly anti-Zionist (like the David Duke speech) to the Anti-Zionism article. As a Jew who is against Zionism, I hate the idea of people associating me with Zionists. Anti-Semitism is an irrational hatred of a particular bloodline. Anti-Zionism is an understandable hatred of people who employ usury, political manipulation, redefinition of language and antisocial business practices to enslave those outside of their tiny group. Jews and Zionists are not the same thing. --Xosa 14:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Quoting Xosa -- "Anti-Zionism is an understandable hatred of people who employ usury, political manipulation, redefinition of language and antisocial business practices to enslave those outside of their tiny group." This is the language of classic and shameful anti-semitism, a precise example of the phenomenon the article discusses. Jlockard 18:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not the language is shameful, it isn't aimed at Semites, so how could it be "anti-Semitism?" I certainly wasn't talking about myself. I've never employed usury, political manipulation, redefinition of language or antisocial business practices in my life, yet I'm a Semite. That's my whole point, and one of the points of David Duke: Jews don't do these things as a rule. We are good, hard-working people who give to greater society as much as we take. Saying that everyone who opposes Zionism also opposes Jews is incorrect and defamatory. --Xosa 00:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Folks while it might be a bit understandable to talk about these issue generally, Wikipedia talk pages are not here to serve such a purpose. I would kindly request that the discussion remain specific about article content and editing. Thanks. (→Netscott) 00:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Who was it aimed at then, and who is practicing "usury"? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Zionists practice usury. I think they call it "banking." But Netscott is right; as this relates to the article, I think several things can be taken out or moved to the anti-Zionism page. For instance, David Duke specifically says that he isn't talking about Jews; his arguments are directed only toward Zionists. I don't think something like that could be any more clear. --Xosa 00:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Zionists practice usury? Huh? Is it only Zionists? Do Zionists practice usury more than other, um, "peoples"? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Is that a rhetorical question, or would you really like to know? --Xosa 17:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls, Jay. CJCurrie 03:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I thought. --Xosa 17:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It would be good if we could discuss this seriously. There's some material it would be nice to add at some point e.g. a debate between Brian Klug and Robert Wistrich, but the article is currently so long I hesitate to add anything. I would like to get rid of (1) the ritual slaughter section, which I feel is weak and arguable; (2) the media and cartoons section, which I also feel is weak as written; and (3) the other commentators section (they should either be incorporated into the text or not mentioned, in my view, and the ones I feel don't need to be mentioned are Natan Sharansky and Michael Neumann. Any thoughts? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I have given up editing this article, but I agree with your proposed changes. 1) agree completely 2)agree. Being Norwegian, I feel that the short remarks about "norwegian media" are more likely to create confusion than anything else. The facts are (almost) correct, but the complete lack of context only makes it weird. I think the whole Media-section could be removed. 3) I am not sure about how to handle this. I feel the critizism of the concept is now mainly linked to radical characters like finkelstein and chomsky in the article as it is now. pertn 08:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Pertn. We do have criticism from non-radical commentators too (for the want of a better expression) e.g. Brian Klug and Steven Zipperstein. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The most obvious candidate for removal is the section on ritual slaughter: "Since the 1930s, Norway, Denmark, and Sweden have banned shechita[...]The Swiss banned kosher slaughter in 1902 [...]The bans are seen by some commentators as part of a "new wave of ugly, and sometimes violent, anti-Semitism sweep[ing] through the European continent."

Beside the other two sections listed by SlimVirgin, I would also take a look at Academia. Not that it should be removed, but it could be made shorter ("anti-Zionist graffiti appeared on the sidewalk"). --Denis Diderot 00:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Slim, I think your suggestion is reasonable. Probably we can move the discussion of whether the banning of ritual slaughter is anti-Semitic to the article on ritual slaughter (if it isn't already well covered there). The core of the NAS thesis is that anti-Semitism masks as anti-Zionism and that anti-Zionism encourages anti-Semitism: given that, it seems quite a stretch to discuss bans on ritual slaughter in this article. - Jmabel | Talk 23:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The point is not whether opposing ritual slaughter is anti-Semitic but whether it's seen to be so and parituclarly whether it's seen to be part of a "new wave" of anti-Semitism. Clearly, from the sources provided in the section, it is. As Jayjg said earlier:

It's entirely possible that the pretext given for banning kosher slaughter was preventing cruelty to animals; regardless, this is an article about New anti-Semitism. Thus, it reports what various sources discussing New (or contemporary) anti-Semitism have said on the subject. If you have some examples of people saying "the bans on kosher meat slaughter were not an example of modern anti-Semitism because..." that's great. But you certainly can't state as fact (as you have done) that prevention of cruelty to animals was the reason for the bans, nor can you argue with the sources based on your own feelings or beliefs about the incident. It pains me to have to say this yet again, but please review WP:NOR, particularly the part that excludes stuff if "It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position." Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 14:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

As I recall, several of the books on New Anti-Semitism refer to the anti-ritual slaughter campaign in Europe. If experts on New anti-Semitism cite the bans on kosher slaughter we would be remiss not to do so in this article. Farnsworth J 00:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you say which books? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to get to the library on Thursday. Farnsworth J 21:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

J Farnsworth, it has been 10 days since you said this, and you still haven't brought any of the books that refer to the anti-ritual slaughter campaign in Europe as "New anti-Semitism" as opposed to plain old "anti-Semitism". Unless you can find some sources for that, I'm going to have to agree with the consensus here. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to go through this at some point, maybe today, and try to tighten up the writing in order to shorten the length. I'll be looking out for repetition, any laboring of points, that kind of thing. I may also try to weave the Chomsky/Finkelstein arguments at the end into the main text, and if I do, I want to remove the critics/proponents section entirely.

If I remove something you disagree with, please bear with me rather than reverting, because I may end up reinserting it elsewhere.

I'll put the copy edit tag up so you'll know when I've started and finished. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I've tidied it a little; between this and the copy edit a few days ago, it's 24 kilobytes shorter. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Good work! Jayjg ^(talk) 17:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

This sentence's got to go: "The meme of a Zionist mastermind controlling the world's economy has been apparent during anti-globalization protests." The "meme" is a highly controversial concept scientifically. Also the use of the term "meme" implies the POV opinion that such ideas are "replicated". Thus the sentence reinforces the idea of a new virus-like spread of ideas amongst the anti-globalists. It is not referenced. In general, one should beware of the idea of a meme because it is a quite weak scientific concept, but even more because it is easy to use to stereotype the ideas of your opponents.pertn 11:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

How about "persistent anti-Semitic motif"? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

much better pertn 19:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind which we say, but there's nothing wrong with "meme." It's not a scientific concept. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

We've been through this before, but I see that the current version has, in the lead paragraph "held to be associated with certain left-wing political views." I wouldn't have any problem even with "held to be sometimes associated with certain left-wing political views," (emphasis just to point out the edit, I'm not asking for italics in the article) but the statement as it stands suggests that "New" anti-Semitism is supposed to be strictly a phenomenon of the Left. Clearly this is not the case. Many of the cited Arab examples are not particularly "Left"; David Duke is about as far from Left as you can get. - Jmabel | Talk 20:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Right-wing anti-semitism wouldn't be new though, would it? Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that's the point, which is also made in the lead; "classic" anti-Semitism has typically come from right-wing or fundamentalist religious sources. According to the sources, one of the main things that is "New" about New anti-Semitism is that it also comes from the left, which has traditionally opposed anti-Semitism. The other new thing about it is the odd alliance of unlikely bedfellows; the far left aligning with far rightists (like Duke) and fundamentalist Muslims. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

If you took the left out of new anti-Semitism, there'd be nothing new about it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

If we are to include David Duke in the article, then "sometimes associated with certain left-wing political views" would be more appropriate. CJCurrie 01:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that it's more than sometimes. The presence of the left is both a necessary and a sufficient condition. The Islamists and David Dukes could become Judeophiles tomorrow, but if the left continued, we'd still have new anti-Semitism. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

In the first place, you should be aware by now that the premise of a "new anti-Semitism" is not agreed upon by all parties. Please don't assume the reality of the concept when discussing usage of the term.

Regardless of whether it refers to anything in the world, we can still say what the concept is. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Second, if NAS-proponents interpret an alliance between David Duke and radical Islam as a credibile manifestation of the concept, then the presence of the left is plainly not a necessary condition. CJCurrie 02:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

They don't. Were it only the far right and Islamists, a new concept would likely not have developed. Of course, we'll never know. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your first point, there is almost nothing that is "agreed upon by all parties", including anti-Semitism itself; for the purposes of this page, it's reasonable enough to discuss the phenomenon in the way the various reliable sources discuss it. Regarding your second point, on top of SlimVirgin's cogent point, alliances between Nazis and Islam are not entirely new; see, for example, Mohammad Amin al-Husayni. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Btw, whatever happened to the revised introduction we were working on a while ago? CJCurrie 02:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't quite right. We need to find wording that gives due emphasis, or else that quotes one of the main thinkers. I'd prefer the latter, but you didn't like the idea of quoting someone. I think the kaleidoscope quote sums it up, for example. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It's odd that you didn't raise any objections at the time. The revised version may not be perfect, but it's still much better than the current wording.

Could I suggest putting the revised version into place now, and making further adjustments if and as required? (For what's it's worth, I'd be willing to accept the "kaleidoscope" quote now if we make it clear that this represents only one interpretation of the term.) CJCurrie 02:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Let me tweak it around a little. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Here's the link I was looking for. Is there any reason why we can't substitute this for the current version? CJCurrie 02:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

There is an obvious assumption here, when anyone uses the word anti-semitic, everyone knows it reffers to hatred towards jews and most left-wing groups have nothing against jews, but against Israel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.215.169.199 (talk • contribs)

Big assumption. Who says that the left wing is immunized from bigotry? --Leifern 17:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's the draft intro that CJCurrie and I have discussed. I'd personally like to see more emphasis on the left as they're the key to the concept of new anti-Semitism but this intro treats them as equal to the far right and Islamism. However, I can't see how to tweak it in that direction without going too far. Do any of the regular editors of the page object to this intro being inserted? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and inserted it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, Ben. You pick out the absolute key aspect, for the purposes of this article and for that section in particular, of the newspaper article about the McShane report, namely the alleged left/Muslim alliance — and those are the very words you choose to delete.

I wouldn't bother fiddling with it. The report itself will be released soon and then we'll have more material. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin - you are acting based on prejudice. SlimVirgin? The next sentence says far-left and Islamist and I didn't delete that one -- thus your claim above is just sort of strange. If you read the article, the use of criticism of Israel as pretext was mentioned in the context of the left and the boycott in particular. My summary is more accurate than what was there -- you converted a nuanced statement in the original source that some criticism was acceptable and that only sometimes was criticism used as a pretext to spreading anti-Semitism to a simple over-generalizing statement that the left and the Islamists use criticism of Israel as a pretext to spreading anti-Semitism. From my perspective you removed a whole lot in your version. --Ben Houston 08:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's important to retain the allegation that the left and Muslim extremists are using criticism of Israel as a pretext, which is one of the main topics of this article. Yet that's the part you've decided to remove. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

In regards to your second statement: I didn't remove that criticism of Israel was used as a pretext -- check the edit history. You are behaving strangely. --Ben Houston 08:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You removed the words "... accuses left-wing activists and Muslim extremists of using criticism of Israel as a "pretext" for spreading anti-Semitism." This is from the Observer. There is no need for you to change it. You are not the source.

I'm sick and tired of you accusing me of prejudice and of acting "emotionally" or "based on my feelings," which you've never explained, so I'm going to say this once and once only. Take careful note. I care ONLY that articles are well-written, sourced to intelligent sources, and informative. I don't actually care if the sources are left-wing, right-wing, no-wing, Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Hindu, none of the above. I would like editors to read serious sources, and then use them properly, quoting them carefully, attributing carefully, reflecting carefully what they say. That's what I try to do myself. I don't always succeed, but I do always try. Do not accuse me again of doing anything else. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Your accusation about me removing that phrase is simple wrong -- you need to check the diff of my edit, which you can do here: . To be completely specific, I changed the phrase:

"and accuses left-wing activists and Muslim extremists of using criticism of Israel as a 'pretext' for spreading anti-Semitism" (emphasis added)

to this similar and more nuanced phrase:

""The report, while it emphasized the right to criticize or protest against Israeli government actions, states that criticism of Israel sometimes 'provided a pretext' for spreading anti-Semitism" (emphasis added)

Both versions mentioned criticism of Israel as providing a pretext for spreading anti-Semitism. The original source actually says this:

"Though emphasising the right of people to criticise or protest against Israeli government actions, it says 'rage' over Israeli policies has sometimes 'provided a pretext' for anti-semitism." (Original)

Check for yourself. I have inserted almost the exact sentence from the source into the article -- it may need quotes around it now though. From my perspective, you are accusing me of distorting the source because I quoted it more accurately. That does seem strange to me. --Ben Houston 08:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Ben, you removed the phrase left-wing activists and Muslim extremists from the article, which was, of course, the whole reason the article was referenced in the section about the left. The newspaper report itself states, in its very first sentence

A group of prominent MPs, alarmed at the rise of anti-semitism in Britain, will accuse some left-wing activists and Muslim extremists this week of using criticism of Israel as 'a pretext' for spreading hatred against British Jews.

Your change was not "similar and more nuanced"; rather, it was "POV pushing and whitewashing". To remove the phrase in the first place was bizarre enough; to then continually claim you had not removed it, goes beyond bizzare, into the realm of the absurd. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg? You are accusing me of removing something I didn't remove -- please note clearly that I didn't modify the sentence in the summary that reads: "McShane described what he called a 'witch's brew' of anti-Semitism involving the far left and 'ultra-Islamist' extremists." Your claim that I, an in attempt at "POV and whitewashing", removed the connection between left-wing and Islamists from the summary is simple wrong and shows that you haven't even read the short summary of the article that we are discussing.

Why not actually talk about what the actual issue is instead of engaging in hysterics? I used a nuanced sentence within the article as the basis of my summary while you are proposing using simpler take on things that is used in the lead paragraph. That said, I still didn't remove either of the two core claims that you and SlimVirgin have just accused me of removing. --Ben Houston 18:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Look at your edit. You removed the phrase left-wing activists and Muslim extremists. This, in fact, is the "core claim", the unusual alliance underlying New anti-Semitism. I can't be more clear than that. It's hard to know what to make of the rest of your comment, except that it would be helpful if you focussed on article content, and avoided hyperbolic language. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg: The summary mentioned it twice and I removed only a duplication while also adding more contextual information. The only way you your accusation of my "whitewashing and POV" makes sense is if you assume people stop reading half way through the summary. This set of false accusations is based on SlimVirgin's initial misreading of my change and your apparently blind support for her. The accusations have become nothing more than a charade. Your inability to understand my last comment shows that discussing this with you in particular is not useful. --Ben Houston 18:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

We don't need you to "modify" what sources say; or to add your own "nuance." We need to quote or closely paraphrase the sources which is what I did. And anyway, as I've told you more than once, there're no point in editing this section because I'm going to rewrite it when the report becomes available, so you're wasting your time. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Huh? I didn't modify what the source said, the nuance was in the original. I think this makes a prefect trifecta of false accusations -- that's an impressive accomplishment considering I only edited one sentence. Its pretty funny actually. To echo the recent words of User:6SJ7, there are clear WP:OWN issues with this article. --Ben Houston 02:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You removed something that the source had said and replaced it with your own words. Perhaps the problem is that you don't read the sources before editing. Whatever causes it, please don't do it again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Your authoritatively worded statement that I "removed something that the source had said and replaced it with [my] own words" is almost a lie, the question is are you intentionally telling a mistruth or are you confused and unable to consider alternatives. --Ben Houston 03:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Ben, whenever you edit the article or post on talk, it turns into a long saga of claim and counter-claim. The sole aim here is to write an article that uses authoritative sources, and to write up what they say without adding any spin to it. Personal opinions about anti-Semitism, accusations on talk, and all the rest, have no place here, and I have no interest in them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You accuse me falsely of things that I didn't do. But I am also attacked for responding to these accusations. It is a funny situation which seems from my perspective to be designed to be unfair towards me. --Ben Houston 13:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Incident report filed here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#How_does_one_deal_with_false_accusations_and_WP:OWN_on_a_sensitive_topic.3F --Ben Houston 15:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

In the spirit of the above, writing an article without adding any spin, three points. One, what is the rationale for juxtaposing the establishment of this inquiry with the proposal for an academic boycott? There is no such reference on the inquiry's website, or on BBC news online this morning. Two, I do not think it is accurate to say that this inquiry was set up by Parliament. It was set up by a cross-party group of parliamentarians. That it has been taken very seriously by distinguished members of the British State and establishment is clear from the details about participation that have been included. Three, I do not think that the "witch's brew" commment by Mr McShane is in the report but was made in a Radio 4 programme last weekend. Oh, and I hope since you are not interested in personal opinions about anti-Semitism you will assume that this edit and any others I may make are offered in good faith, and not jump to conclusions as you and another admin did last month. Itsmejudith 07:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought it might be helpful to list the scholarly and government sources we use in this article, in response to a few editors who have turned up here without reading the article to complain that it isn't sourced. "Where are the sources?" one of them asked recently. Here they are. (In addition to the following, we use several well-known journalists and other writers. Full list here.) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

We have 118 footnotes citing 76 separate sources.

Scholarly sources:

• Michael Barkun, professor of political science at Syracuse University
• Yehuda Bauer professor of Holocaust studies at the Avraham Harman Institute of Contemporary Jewry at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
• Anne Bayefsky, professor of law at York University.
• Phyllis Chesler, professor emeritus of psychology and women's studies at the College of Staten Island.
• Noam Chomsky, professor of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
• Irwin Cotler, professor of law at McGill University.
• Alan Dershowitz, Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Harvard University.
• Todd Endelman, William Haber Professor of Modern Jewish History at the University of Michigan.
• Jack Fischel, chair of history at Millersville University of Pennsylvania.
• Manfred Gerstenfeld, director of the Post-Holocaust and Anti-Semitism project, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.
• Todd Gitlin, professor of journalism and sociology at Columbia University.
• Brian Klug, senior research fellow in philosophy at St Benet's Hall, Oxford.
• Norman Finkelstein, professor of political science at DePaul University.
• Edward H. Kaplan, William N. and Marie A. Beach Professor of Management Sciences at the Yale School of Management, Professor of Public Health at the Yale School of Medicine, and Professor of Engineering in the Yale Faculty of Engineering.
• Deborah Lipstadt, professor of Modern Jewish and Holocaust Studies at Emory University.
• Baruch Kimmerling, professor of sociology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
• George Michael, assistant professor of political science and administration of justice at the University of Virginia's College of Wise,
• Earl Raab, director emeritus of the Nathan Perlmutter Institute for Jewish Advocacy, Brandeis University.
• Edward Said, former professor of English and comparative literature at Columbia University.
• Charles A. Small, Director of Urban Studies at the Southern Connecticut State University, and professor with the Institute for Social and Policy Studies at Yale University.
• Lawrence Summers, former president of Harvard University.
• Pierre-André Taguieff, philosopher and director of research at the Centre national de la recherche scientifique.
• Joseph Telushkin, National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership.
• Robert Wistrich, Neuberger Professor of Modern History at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and head of its International Center for the Study of Anti-Semitism.
• Steven Zipperstein, professor of Jewish Culture and History at Stanford University.
• Laurie Zoloth, Director of Bioethics, and professor of Medical Ethics and Humanities, Northwestern University.

Government reports/special inquiries:

• France: "Chantier sur la lutte contre le racisms et l'antisemitisme," chaired by Jean-Christophe Rufin, president of Action Against Hunger and former vice-president of Médecins Sans Frontières, October 19, 2004.
• Israel: Coordinating Forum for Countering Antisemitism, headed by Deputy Foreign Minister Rabbi Michael Melchior, set up in 2001.
• UK: "All Parliamentary Inquiry into Anti-Semitism in the UK," chaired by Dr. Denis McShane, former Europe Minister for the UK, September 7, 2006.
• U.S.: "Report on Global Anti-Semitism," U.S. State Dept, 2004.

The major issue isn't the sources but rather the frequent misquoting or selective quoting of them in order to create a one-sided presentation. It's a standard technique of propagandists. The problem with this article is that one person is forcing everything to be perceived through a distorted lens. That said, it fairly easy to notice that the main writer of this article is pushing an agenda. Dave Winer once said that one of the biggest issues with Wikipedia is that many articles are written with people with agendas and that more people need to be aware of this. --Ben Houston 13:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Give me one example of my "frequent misquoting or selective quoting." And do not accuse me again of "pushing an agenda." You are being incredibly offensive. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Haaretz article. --Ben Houston 13:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

We don't need it. We have the report itself. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

But they are useful in backing up how we describe the report. Without third-party commentary, it can become easy to draw original conclusions or inadvertantly push a certain point of view by emphasizing parts or ideas that didn't receive emphasis in the press or in general. (This isn't necessarily me endorsing the Haaretz article, as I'm not familiar with that paper.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware of that, and I've been extremely careful to report accurately on the parts of the report that directly concern our article. As I said below, criticism of the report will be added if and when people publish any, which will take some time. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added the material from it that's directly relevant to our article. I'm looking out for criticism of the report and will add it when it arrives, but it could be a few days or longer before the serious commentators get a chance to review it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

In a recent edit, SlimVirgin added the following image and caption to the "Left and anti-Zionism" section:

The caption that accompanies the image is, in fact, not accurate. The quoted text appears only once in the course of the report, and in the following context:

"158. We heard evidence that contemporary antisemitism in Britain is now more commonly found on the left of the political spectrum than on the right. Professor Cesarani submitted that this has made it harder to define and contest "because it no longer has any resemblance to classical Nazi-style Jew hatred, because it is masked by or blended inadvertently into anti-Zionism, and because it is often articulated in the language of human right".

The committee does not offer an opinion on Professor Cesarani's views. Its only recommendation in this section is to advise the Electoral Commission to establish a "contract of acceptable behaviour" for candidates to exercise due caution "when addressing issues such as racism, community relations and minorities during political campaigning."

In other words, the quoted text is a misattribution and has no business being in the article.

I hope that a further review of the British report will not result in the discovery of similar misattributions. CJCurrie 20:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Then add his name rather than removing it, please! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

? CJCurrie 20:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't say that only Cesarani said it. Please read the report carefully, CJC. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I've addressed this below. CJCurrie 21:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I never implied that "only Cesarani said it". I merely took issue with the demonstrably incorrect claim that the commission formally endorsed this view.

Have you read the summary of conclusions? There are quite a few direct references to the BNP and radical Islam in the "sources of anti-Semitism" section, but not one direct reference to the left. CJCurrie 20:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Please read the whole report, not just the draft. As for the criticism section in the left, we can't have one section only with its own criticism section. It has already led others to think that's the criticism for the entire article. In fact, the criticism is woven through the text, as it should be, and so that's what I've done here too. You didn't seem at all bothered about having it a couple of weeks ago, and in fact it was me who put it back only because the section would be too long in one lump. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Responses:

(i) Further to the above, I'm not certain there's a particularly compelling need to highlight a single professor's charge that anti-Semitism is more prevalent on the left than the right, particularly when the report pictured next to the quote does not actually endorse this conclusion.

It doesn't say it's a single professor. Read the report before commenting, please! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Very well: I've not certain there's a particularly compelling need to highlight the commission's having "heard evidence" that anti-Semitism is now more prevalent on the left than the right, particularly when they did not actually endorse this view in the report pictured next to the quote. CJCurrie 21:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

(ii) we can't have one section only with its own criticism section. Why not? This section alone (dealing with accusations concerning the Left and anti-Zionsim) seems to be a magnet for criticism.

(iii) It has already led others to think that's the criticism for the entire article. Like whom? I've not seen anyone make this claim.

(iv) I think you may be unclear as to my present intentions vis-a-vis the "criticism" section. If there is a consensus among other contributors to this page that the "criticism" section should be restructured or retitled, I'm prepared to live with that decision. I am not, however, of the mind that the section should be removed by one contributor with no prior discussion. Let's discuss the matter first, and then act according to consensus. CJCurrie 20:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

We have already discussed the matter and you indicated that you didn't mind. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

When did I say this? I think you may be confusing me with another contributor, or taking something I said out-of-context. CJCurrie 21:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

CJCurrie, it appears that it is you who is misattributing. The report itself states "We heard evidence that contemporary antisemitism in Britain is now more commonly found on the left of the political spectrum than on the right. Professor Cesarani submitted that this has made it harder to define and contest "because it no longer has any resemblance to classical Nazi-style Jew hatred, because it is masked by or blended inadvertently into anti-Zionism, and because it is often articulated in the language of human rights." The report does not say that it was Cesarani who provided the evidence; indeed, it does not state who gave it. However, it notes that Cesarani submitted that this made it harder to define and contest. I'm rather dismayed by the lack of good faith here, and if you're going to insist that others attribute accurately, I think you should start by doing so yourself.

Also, I note that you reverted SV's integration of the criticism into the article with the comment that "I'm not going to allow you to remove the "criticism" section, Slim. This comment seems to imply that the criticism was removed, when no criticism was actually removed at all, and it implies a disturbing sense of ownership over that section. Could you explain in more understandable terms why you felt the need to revert that edit? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

(i) Read my words carefully, Jay. I did not at any time suggest that I believed the misattribution to be deliberate.

(ii) I have to admit to being more than a bit puzzled by your countercharge. I never indicated that Prof. Cesarani was the source of the evidence; I merely noted that the commission did not endorse his statements. I could add that the commission did not formally endorse the "evidence" either.

(iii) I would prefer that contributors to this page discuss any restructuring or retitling of the "criticism" section, prior to changes being made. Clear enough? CJCurrie 20:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. When you describe the aforementioned quotation as "Professor Cesarani's views", it appears as if you attribute all of the evidence to him (as I stated before), and your "hope" regarding not finding other misattributions is not a very "good faith" type of statement - the import is clear enough. Your explanation that by "removed" you meant "restuctured or retitled" is rather far-fetched, but of course I believe that that is exactly what you meant. And finally I also did not suggest that you believed the "misattribution" to be deliberate; well, no moreso than you did, in any event. :-) Jayjg ^(talk) 21:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

As long as we're clear. Btw, my initial use of the word "removed" referred only to the header; I wonder if you might be seeing contradictions where none exist. CJCurrie 21:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose anything is possible. :-) Jayjg ^(talk) 21:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: criticism: "... it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms." - Jimbo Wales. I agree with that, and so I try to incorporate criticism into the text whenever it's practical to do so. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not certain this quote is applicable here: the quotes are hardly random or arbitary. CJCurrie 20:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's applicable. He was talking about all articles. Good articles will tend to have the criticism incorporated throughout wherever possible. And this section in our article is very much a random collection of quotes. We have Chomsky talking about anti-Semitism in the Republican Party and Finkelstein talking about how Phyllis Chesler (whom we haven't even mentioned!) doesn't talk enough about Israeli attacks on Arabs.

The problem with the black-and-white approach you're taking is that there's no room for nuance. For example, I was about to add a criticism of the view that anti-Israel = anti-Semitism, but it's from a writer who is otherwise a proponent of NAS, so I wouldn't add him to a criticism section. This article has tried to be three dimensional and nuanced, and having a lone criticism subsection of just one section jars. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

As I recall, the Chesler/Finkelstein reference was added by someone else. I agree that it's a bit jarring, and I'd have no objection to removing it.

The "Criticism" header itself, however, is there for a reason (actually three reasons, which I outlined a few weeks ago -- I don't feel like repeating myself now, but anyone can review my comments just by scrolling up the page.) Your arguments are not without merit, and I look forward to the responses of other contributors to the page. CJCurrie 21:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

CJC, I see you've reverted again. Can you please say why you're reverting something you appeared to agree to a couple of weeks ago?

Please justify having a criticism section for the Left and anti-Zionism section only, but none for any other (where criticism is woven into the text instead). Also, apart from that, I would like to build up a section about Left-wing anti-Zionism, with pro and anti material, which is what I started with that section. Nothing was removed, and in fact it would have been added to.

Please notice that this is the worst section (in my view) of the article, basically just a list of quotes, with no organizing principle and no narrative, which is usually a sign that the editors haven't done much reading but have just added a bunch of quotes. I would like to clean it up and incorporate it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

(i) Can you please say why you're reverting something you appeared to agree to a couple of weeks ago? Perhaps I could, if I knew what you were referring to.

(ii) I've already responded to your second question above. CJCurrie 20:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

No, you haven't. Again: (1) please justify having a criticism section for the Left and anti-Zionism section only, but none for any other; and (2) are you saying you disagree with Jimbo's comment that "it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms"? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's where it was discussed before where you said you weren't wedded to keeping it. I then removed the section, and it was me who later added it back, only because the Left section was otherwise too long. I did that as a temporary measure until I got round to creating a proper subsection on anti-Zionism, which the criticism material would be incorporated into. That was the subsection I tried to start today. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I said I wasn't permanently wedded to keeping it, if someone could suggest a better alternative. As it stands, I'm not certain that SV's solution properly addresses point (ii) of my initial objections; in fact, it may simply make matters worse. Presentation is important in an article of this sort, after all. CJCurrie 21:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Btw, my recollection is that you didn't object to the criticism section a few weeks ago. CJCurrie 21:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed it, as I said above. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

And in fact, you wrote: "I think most would agree that the association with anti-Zionism is the most controversial aspect of NAS. It doesn't strike me as inappropriate to have a separate section for such criticism." Exactly. That's what I was creating. I just wasn't calling it "Criticism." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

See above. CJCurrie 21:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you please answer my two questions above? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I already have. CJCurrie 21:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you copy and paste them here, please, because I can't see them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

(i) you wrote: we can't have one section only with its own criticism section. I responded: Why not? This section alone (dealing with accusations concerning the Left and anti-Zionsim) seems to be a magnet for criticism. Summary: I'm not convinced there's a problem with only only section having a criticism section.

Then where will the rest of the anti-Zionism material go? Must I create yet another section, and then can't Finkelstein's and Ali's material be used there? You're creating silly divisions. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure some viable compromise could be reached. A bit of creativity never hurts. CJCurrie 22:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's no compromise between having and not having a criticism subsection. I've just started reading Beyond Chutzpah, for example, and was intending to weave more of that throughout the text, and in particular in a new anti-Zionism section. But it's not all appropriate for a "criticism" section. Your black-and-white mentality doesn't fit the real world. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Back to ad hominem attacks, are we? Honestly, Slim, my (current) support for a "Criticism" section under "The Left and anti-Zionism" is based on very specific concerns, which I've already outlined in a previous post. I indicated some time ago that I was not "permanently wedded" to the concept, and I stand by this now (to put it another way, I remain willing to compromise). What I'm not going to do is permit the section to be retitled with something that does not address my prior concerns, and in fact only makes matters worse. CJCurrie 22:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

(ii) I think the word "random" may be the sticking point here. Many articles have "criticism" sections; these criticisms are not random. CJCurrie 21:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Never mind that part of it. Do you disagree with Jimbo (and with all good Wikipedia editors that I'm familiar with) that, whenever possible, criticism should be woven throughout the text?

It's useful as a general rule, but there will always be some exceptions. CJCurrie 22:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Why should this be an exception? On the contrary, this is an easy article to weave the criticism into, because every point for and against suggests its opposite. There's no need for a separate section in an article like this. What it suggests is that we don't know how to write. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

See above. I'm not (as I said) permanently wedded to the concept of a "criticism" section, but I don't believe your technical objections are valid grounds for removing it. CJCurrie 23:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

In response to the two valid points made: a) that if we summarise we may introduce bias and b) that if we use too many quotations the text will be unwieldy, I would like to make a simple suggestion. That is, that reports such as the McShane report carry their own summaries, introductions and conclusions. The purpose of these is to help out busy editors. So that is what we can and should use the most. It will not usually be appropriate to sift through the text for points that are found in there but are not prominent.

No, we won't do that. These draft reports are produced in order to influence media coverage (basically, to write the stories for the journalists). That's precisely what we don't allow. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I want to contribute to ensuring that the McShane report appears here in a perfectly fair way that reflects its contents as accurately as possible. But it will take me a couple of days, rather than a couple of hours, to do this. BTW is this report noteworthy enough for its own article? Itsmejudith 21:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I thoroughly resent your implication that (1) I may not have represented it fairly, and (2) that you're somehow better able to do so. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I do think that some of the editors of this article need to take a deep breath and calm down. The exchange above is a long way from what WP:CIVILITY advocates. I think that kind of response to a polite query is unjustified, unhelpful and leads to an unnecessarily hostile atmosphere between editors. Civility is surely more important than ever when dealing with sensitive and controversial topics like this. Can we please try to stay cool? -- ChrisO 22:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

There currently isn't enough material for its own article, which would consist only of a summary of the report. If a lot of criticism is published and it becomes a debating point, that may change. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, three things for me to respond to here.

1) What I mean is that we should mainly draw on points that are prominent in the report's OWN summary sections, i.e. the introduction, the executive summary, the main conclusion. That seems to me to be the most reliable way to reflect the report's own spin, without adding our own. Of course, the editors of any report look to how it will play in the media. As encyclopedia writers we should respect that and try to play it the way the editors wanted, not any other way. That's all.

2) I didn't imply anything about SlimVirgin's capacity to contribute. I only said I wanted to make a contribution. Two heads are better than one - that is part of the Wikipedia philosophy, no? Thank you ChrisO for your suggestion about remaining calm, much appreciated.

3) SlimVirgin's probably right about there not being enough material on the McShane report for its own article. When I get a chance I hope to find out what Wikipedia has already carried about previous parliamentary all-party committees and their reports. This is because the British constitution and government are complicated. I want to get some things sorted in my own mind about the committee's status and then (as a British person who is supposed to understand these things) may be able to put them into Wikipedia.

With the warmest, friendliest greetings to all those working overtime on this article. (NOT SARCASTIC - REAL!!!!) Itsmejudith 18:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Chris, you're adding unnecessary attribution as though anyone doubts it: "to refer to what writers have described as 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." Can you name a source who argues that there has been no wave of anti-Semitism that escalated since those events? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm just being cautious. I'm certainly not denying it, merely attributing it neutrally. If you can think of an alternative way of attributing it (e.g. "according to xxx") then please feel free to do so. -- ChrisO 22:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

There's no need to attribute obvious points that no one would disagree with. We don't refer to the "ball of fire that writers have described as the sun." Ditto with a wave of anti-Semitism. You won't find anyone who disagrees with that basic point; well, not anyone serious. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

There's no proposition so obvious that someone won't disagree with it. Call that ChrisO's Law, if you like. ;-) Seriously though, attributing it leaves open the door to a discussion of whether this reported phenomenon is in fact real or not, rather than just stating baldly that it is real. I see CJCurrie's managed to find a contradictory view - no doubt there's more like it. -- ChrisO 22:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

What does the evidence show? There has been good investigation done, serious investigation. All the evidence shows there's no -- there's no evidence at all for a rise of a new anti-Semitism, whether in Europe or in North America. The evidence is zero. And, in fact, there's a new book put out by an Israel stalwart. His name is Walter Laqueur, a very prominent scholar. It's called The Changing Face of Anti-Semitism. It just came out, 2006, from Oxford University Press. He looks at the evidence, and he says no. There's some in Europe among the Muslim community, there's some anti-Semitism, but the notion that in the heart of European society or North American society there's anti-Semitism is preposterous. And in fact -- or no, a significant rise in anti-Semitism is preposterous.

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=479

CJCurrie 22:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

If that's a recent text, and if he is saying there is no rise, then he's making a fool of himself, because every single agency that records incidents is recording a rise. But I don't think that's what he's saying: "No rise of a new anti-Semitism"; no "significant" rise in anti-Semitism. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

According to the cited page it's dated August 29, 2006 or shortly thereafter. -- ChrisO 22:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Laqueur may well be making a fool of himself, but that's not for you or me to decide. As someone once said, we have to go with what the sources say. I'm skeptical of his conclusions myself, but there doesn't appear to be any getting around his assessment (your hair-splitting quibbles notwithstanding). CJCurrie 23:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

And then there's this. CJCurrie 23:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I've done some digging in historical archives to see if I could find out where this term and concept comes from. It has quite an interesting history - the concept of a "new anti-Semitism" seems to have first originated around the end of the 19th century as a way of distinguishing anti-Jewish sentiment based on scientific racism from the older, more "primitive" religious-based sentiment. The sources show that it was later used with reference to Stalin's anti-Jewish campaigns, which were of course related to his views on Zionism; this seems to have been the earliest form of what we'd now call "new anti-Semitism" (though I've also found suggestions that the Soviets used anti-Semitic propaganda to campaign against Zionism as early as the 1930s). Then, finally, in the 1980s we have Israeli assertions that the New Left was practising "new anti-Semitism". Sources dating to after about 1990 appear to use this meaning exclusively.

It was an interesting bit of research; hopefully it'll provide a bit of useful background for the article. -- ChrisO 22:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Another editor today found an early use of it in relation to left-wing anti-Zionism in an article written in 1984. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm done responding here for today, by the way. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I tried my hand at reading through the original criticism sources and organized what I found. The result is this outline/draft of a criticism section:

User:Bhouston/Criticism_of_new_anti-Semitism.

It is very rough, lacks some overall cohesiveness and needs softer edges but I think that even so, it deals head-on and accurately with the key, albeit complex, issues that critics have with the concept of NAS. --Ben Houston 23:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I withdraw this draft/outline from consideration. It was more just a means for me to organization my own views. --Ben Houston 21:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is the British report included under "The Left and anti-Zionism" to begin with, when its conclusions are focused more on the radical right and radical Islam? CJCurrie 23:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The parts of the report that deal with the left are in that section; the parts that deal with on-campus anti-Semitism are in the On campus section; the parts that deal with the right in the Far right section, and so on. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

CJ, to keep on removing that image is just disruptive. The cutline is completely accurate, and this is the section about the left, so that comment belongs there. That really is not a valid edit. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

As I've already noted, a single professor's testimony before a government commission is not especially remarkable, especially when the commission does not endorse said testimony. If I were a more cynical individual, I might suspect you were simply trying to find some way of fitting a picture of the report into the "Left and anti-Zionism" section.

Accusations of "disruption" tend to wear thin after a while, btw. CJCurrie 00:36, 8 September 2006

(UTC)

Well, they shouldn't. Please take them seriously. You remove the image and cutline just because it says "concluded that" and you want "heard evidence that," and then when I change the wording, you remove it again anyway; and earlier you claimed just one professor had said it; and now you claim you have no idea why the report is even mentioned in that section. Chris, you might want to read the report very carefully and try to learn something from it, rather than assuming you know more than people who have studied the subject. Please don't go back to the edit warring you use to engage in. Remember what it led to. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

You stated above that you were not implying that it was the testimony of a single professor, that I had someone misinterpreted you, but here you are making it clear you are assuming exactly that. If I were a more cynical individual, I might suspect you were changing your story to whatever you thought might be a better way of deleting the image and reference. When a commission "hears evidence", it is actually significant, and it doesn't mean that it is from one individual. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I was getting the quotes confused. (Sorry, I'm multitasking.)

In any event, it doesn't matter. At the risk of repeating myself, Very well: I've not certain there's a particularly compelling need to highlight the commission's having "heard evidence" that anti-Semitism is now more prevalent on the left than the right, particularly when they did not actually endorse this view in the report pictured next to the quote. CJCurrie 00:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

You may claim it "doesn't matter". The evidence, though, is damning. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Evidence of what? I'll freely acknowledge that the "single professor" line was a mistake (and one I've made twice so far). I'm puzzled as to why you would suggest some malevolence to this error, however, or imply that my entire case rises or falls upon it. CJCurrie 00:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove that image or the caption again. The British report contained this information in its section on the left. We cite it in our section on the left. It's therefore 100 percent appropriate, and you have no grounds for removing it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I would beg to disagree. The committee's own conclusions identify anti-Semitism as emerging primarily from the right and radical Islam. I can think of little justification for including its image in the "Left and anti-Zionism" section, except as POV-pushing. CJCurrie 01:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

CJ, have you read it? They have a whole section on the left and anti-Semitism. I used that section as a source for OUR section on the left. They have a section on the right. I use that section as a source for OUR section on the right. They have a whole section on campuses. I used that section as a source for OUR section on campuses. It could not be more straightforward. You have no valid grounds to object. You're simply removing material that you personally don't like, and doing it in the most blatant way imaginable, wasting everyone's time, your own included. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to remove the text -- I'm removing a POV-pushing image. Btw, I find it passing strange that you haven't shown the slightest bit of contrition for your incredible distortion of the report's findings earlier today. CJCurrie 01:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

There was no "incredible distortion." Stop this now, please. You're going too far and it's pointless. You know that when we collaborate, we get more done, and it benefits the article as well as us, so please try to regain that position. This pointless back and forth just gets everyone mad and the article suffers.

Please explain why you feel an image of the report cover is "POV pushing." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It most certainly was an incredible distortion. You claimed, inaccurately, that the report concluded that anti-Semitism was more prevalent on the left than on the right. In fact, you made this claim twice. I'm not accusing you of deliberately distorting the text, but I would appreciate an acknowledgement of error, rather than a protracted effort to maintain the text in a slightly altered form.

The image is POV-pushing because the report does not single out the left for criticism. In fact, it minimizes the left when drawing its conclusions. Including an image of the report in a section dealing with "the Left and anti-Zionism" seems calculated to create an inaccurate image of the report's conclusions in the eyes of most readers. CJCurrie 01:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for moving the image. I now consider this matter to be closed. CJCurrie 01:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I find this edit to be entirely inappropriate, and will challenge it at the earliest possible opportunity.

Reasons:

(i) It has already been noted that some critics of the term have challenged the idea of an increase in anti-Semitism. The statement, "That there has been a resurgence of anti-Semitic attacks and attitudes is accepted by opponents of the concept of new anti-Semitism" is not factually correct as applied to all such critics.

(ii) I have not misunderstood the significance of "heard evidence". The important thing is that the commission did not endorse this evidence in its conclusion. The image, in its current form, is naked POV-pushing.

As I understand it, I'm not even permitted to add a "NPOV" notice at present, under the regulations of the 3RR. As such, I would encourage other participants to review my comments, and consider adding such a notice themselves. CJCurrie 00:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

(i) Finkelstein propagandizes on just about any subject he imagines is related to Israel, but his second-hand opinion regarding anti-Semitism is certainly not notable, much less justifying deleting a phrase describing the scholarly consensus.

(ii) When a commission says it "heard evidence", that is an endorsement.

--Jayjg ^(talk) 00:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

(i) Finkelstein has challenged the accuracy of claims of increased anti-Semitism. You can spin this however you want, but this fact alone challenges the accuracy of the article's current wording.

(ii) Any evidence for that claim? CJCurrie 00:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Finkelstein can claim what he likes; however, his expertise in this area is nil - his is not a notable opinion on this subject. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, he wrote his graduate thesis on modern American Zionist literature, and has written extensively on the theory of a "new anti-Semitism". What's more, his writings on the subject have been published by a credible firm, Alan Dershowitz's best efforts to stop the presses notwithstanding. Feel free to disagree with everything he's written, but don't pretend his is not a notable opinion on the subject. CJCurrie 01:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

His expertise, such as it is, does not extend to anti-Semitism. Infamous people can often get their books published on just about any topic they want, but that doesn't make his opinion on this subject notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

In specific regional areas there have been increases in attacks against Jews and Jewish symbols -- that is a pretty clear fact. In Canada, in particular there was an distinct increase that coincided with the recent Israeli invasion and bombing of Lebanon in response to the Hezbollah kidnappings. What is more controversial is whether these attacks are the result of an increase in deep seated anti-Semitic prejudice (which suggests that one has to focus all efforts on combating anti-Semitism) or, as claimed by critics, rooted in Muslim/Arab political outrage (which requires a more multifaceted response.) --Ben Houston 00:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, are you saying that an increase in attacks on Jewish targets in relation to events in Israel is somehow not anti-Semitic? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I am echoing what Brian Klug posits in his article "The Myth of New Anti-Semitism" in the Nation. He writes that "the evidence suggests that the perpetrators of the anti-Jewish attacks in France were animated by political outrage, not bigotry. According to the Israeli Foreign Ministry itself, most of the incidents were a protest against inequities in the occupied territories." --Ben Houston 01:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The same evidence also suggests that the rioters of Kristallnacht were animated by political outrage at the assassination of Ernst vom Rath, not bigotry. Who was the target of those attacks, again? The Israeli embassy, or random French Jews? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Klug describes the reasoning of NAS proponents: "For it's not the Jews of France who are occupying the territories, it's the State of Israel. If the motive for these incidents was purely political, why didn't the protesters attack the Israeli embassy? Why attack individual Jews and Jewish institutions?" ^[1]

Klug goes on to state that things are not that simple and that this

"misconception goes to the heart of the complex situation in which Jews find themselves today. Israel does not regard itself as a state that just happens to be Jewish (like the medieval kingdom of the Khazars). It sees itself as (in Prime Minister Sharon's phrase) 'the Jewish collective,' the sovereign state of the Jewish people as a whole. In his speech at the Herzliya Conference in December, Sharon called the state 'a national and spiritual center for all Jews of the world,' and added, 'Aliyah [Jewish immigration] is the central goal of the State of Israel.' To what extent this view is reciprocated by Jews worldwide is hard to say. Many feel no particular connection to the state or strongly oppose its actions. On the other hand, in spring 2002, at the height of Israel's Operation Defensive Shield, Jews gathered in large numbers in numerous cities to demonstrate their solidarity, as Jews, with Israel. Many Jewish community leaders, religious and secular, publicly reinforce this identification with the state. All of which is liable to give the unreflective onlooker the impression that Jews are, as it were, lumping themselves together; that Israel is indeed 'the Jewish collective.'"^[1]

Klug cautions those that the complex relationship between the Jewish diaspora and Israel do not justify in any way "a single incident where Jews are attacked for being Jewish; such attacks are repugnant. But it does provide a context within which to make sense of them without seeing a global 'war against the Jews.'"--Ben Houston 01:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand; one must never say that viewing Jews as a single undifferentiated collective, and attacking random Jews for the actions of others hundred or thousands of miles away, is, in any way, anti-Semitism. Of course, one cannot condone such acts, but because the situation is so "complex", one can certainly understand it. And whatever it is, again, when a random French Jew gets his head bashed in by a rioter who doesn't like Ariel Sharon, it's a complex thing that is definitely not anti-Semitism. Perhaps we should refer to such Jew-bashing as "legitimate, but misguided, political protest". And, as a bonus, that will bring the number of anti-Semitic incidents waaay down. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, instead of me continuing to copy and paste from Klug's article, why not read it yourself? Here is it: The Myth of New Anti-Semitism. (It is sort of funny that the majority of Klug's criticism are not contained in the existing summary of his work in the article....) Best. --Ben Houston 01:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's say that someone like Osama bin Laden claimed to be speaking for all Muslims, and, based on some political claims, decided to destroy the World Trade Center towers in the name of Islam, and some American then decided they hated and feared Muslims. Would that be an example of Islamophobia, or of some complex political response? (The Klug article doesn't discuss that). Jayjg ^(talk) 20:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite understand the analogy your making. I do believe that Islamophobia is to be condemned but you are right that it is a secondary issue that is driven by people misunderstanding Islamist-associated terrorism -- it is clear that attacks on Arabs or people suspected to be Arabs (such as turban wearing Hindus) tends to rise after the 9/11 attacks and so forth. It would be a mistake to say that those retaliatory attacks on Arabs are the primary result of a deep seated Islamophobia -- Islamophobia is rising because of prejudicial transferance just as anti-Semitism is. Also on that topic I can say this: I do favor viewing the battle against Islamist extremists as a policing matter as is a more common perception in Europe/Britian than as a global "War on Terror" or a conflict of civilizations. Viewing it as a policing matter that is just targeting criminal activity avoids making things more complex than necessary as well as potentially aggravating the situation rather than calming it. I don't view a "War on Terror" as a particularly effective concept -- for example, it never really made sense how Iraq under Saddam fit considering he wasn't really engaged in what is normally termed terrorism, claims he was aligned with al Queda were fairly flimsy, rather he was a relatively isolated, although brutal dictator of a fairly secular state. I guess I favor viewing things as they actually are rather than trying to fit them into contrived, simplified and potentially misleading conceptual frameworks. --Ben Houston 20:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg asked "I'm not talking about prejudice against Arabs or Hindus, or the War on Terror, I'm talking about firebombing mosques in response. Would that be an example of Islamophobia?"

I understand that it can be problematic in the way Brian Klug formulated his response in order to say that those attacks were not anti-Semitic -- that is your issue. I am now being put by you in the position of defending his piece. If you read his piece, I believe that when he is saying that those attacks are not necessarily anti-Semitic it is in the context of his claim that the primary cause is not anti-Semitism, it is a secondary effect based on misunderstanding. That said, outside of the context of the case he is making in his essay, those attacks can obviously be classified as anti-Semitism. Just as firebombing mosques can be classified as Islamophobia (although I would argue its a lot more than just a phobia if it involves firebombings.) If you read his essay you'll understand what I am talking about. I think that we're sort of stuck at the moment of talking past each other. --Ben Houston 21:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I would not dispute the contention that there has been a rise in anti-Semitic rhetoric and incidents since 2000, but this isn't the point at issue. For our present purposes, the only fact of significance is that at least one NAS-opponent has questioned the claim. (At least two, if you count Tony Judt.) CJCurrie 01:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. From my perspective, the main issue with new anti-Semitism is it posits relationships between real world phenomena that are incorrect and leads one to draw the inaccurate and dangerously paranoid conclusions. In the words of Klug, the NAS's conclusion that there is a growing global coalition of anti-Jewish sentiment "as much a figment of the imagination as its mirror image: a Jewish conspiracy against the world." --Ben Houston 01:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Finkelstein isn't a NAS-opponent, he's an Israel-opponent, and his "expertise", such as it is, is the Holocaust. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Finkelstein most certainly is an NAS-opponent, as evidenced in the first third of Beyond Chutzpah. The rest of your statement is both inaccurate and irrelevant. CJCurrie 01:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Finkelstein is not a notable NAS opponent, since he has no expertise in anti-Semitism. He can write about whatever he likes, but that doesn't mean his opinion is relevant. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

CJCurrie, you have a habit of deleting entire paragraphs you don't like when, at most, a word or two are contentious. You did it with the image; once that one word was changed to make it more "accurate", of course, you deleted it anyway, on other spurious grounds. I've now modified the paragraph in question to take not of the fact that one non-expert, non-notable critic of New anti-Semitism disagrees; all it took was two words. Do you plan to delete the paragraph again on some new grounds? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to delete it, because doing so would place me in violation of the 3RR. "Almost all" is not a satisfactory phrase, as it is obviously leading. However, I would not object to replacing it with the word "most". (Who said I was unwilling to compromise?) CJCurrie 01:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It's sad, but unsurprising, that the only reason you weren't going to delete it again was because you would have violated 3RR; apparently you would prefer to delete the whole paragraph, rather than change "almost all" to "most". Perhaps it is becoming more apparent to you why accusations of "disruption" have not "worn thin" at all. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you're not familiar with ironic humour. If so, I should perhaps clarify that my first comment was not intended to be taken at literal face-value.

Anyway, it's truly remarkable that you've managed to interpret my willingness to compromise as a sign of intransigence. To avoid further confusion, I will reiterate that I'd be willing to accept "most" as a compromise wording. CJCurrie 01:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at what you achieved today, and how many man (and woman!) hours it took. We could have done all this in five minutes flat by cooperating. You need to read some game theory.

I've changed "almost all" to "most," even though we really shouldn't give in to Finkelstein. You know yourself that all the evidence points toward a sharp rise in anti-Semitism since 2000. In the UK, July 2006 saw the highest number of reported anti-Semitic incidents since they began keeping records (admittedly, I don't know when that was). So if Finkelstein is simply saying: "Bah, no, it's preposterous," it shows that Finkelstein isn't a good source. One of the strengths of this article is that it doesn't rely on the usual rent-a-quote sources: Chesler and Foxman on one side and Chomsky and Finkelstein on the other, with the highest level of reading material Frontpagemag and Counterpunch. I hope we can keep it that way. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I could respond to this, but there's really no need. We're agreed on the wording. Let's move on. CJCurrie 01:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the image too, as it may be the image being in that section you object to rather than per se, though I don't see what difference it makes, but I've put it in the United Kingdom section, so I hope that's settled now. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Noted above. Thank you for the change. The matter is closed. CJCurrie 01:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Given that Klug and Wistrich were invited to give evidence to the British inquiry, and Klug to a previous German one, and Wistrich to the UN, they're clearly both regarded as major players in this debate, so I've added a subsection on their correspondence. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

We received evidence of an increase in antisemitism within certain fringe elements of the Muslim community. In many cases, these are the actions and words of a small yet radical minority whose views do not represent those of the mainstream majority. However, this cannot simply be dismissed as insignificant and the views of radical Islamists do seem to be entering mainstream discourse. Antisemitic rhetoric of this kind creates a climate of fear and intimidation for Jews in Britain.

This text appears in a section entitled "Islamist Antisemitism". Any rational person reading this quote would conclude that the line "the views of radical Islamists do seem to be entering mainstream discourse" is made in reference to British Muslim culture, not British culture as a whole. Wrenching the phrase out of context, however, implies the latter interpretation.

This is almost a textbook example of quoting-out-of-context. CJCurrie 04:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

See below. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony wrote on a number of user pages today that arbitration may be a good idea on this page. I quote from him here:

"Perhaps I'm being a bit too previous, but I suspect that it's about time the arbitration committee looked at this New anti-Semitism kerfuffle. I've applied for arbitration . --Tony Sidaway 02:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)"

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#New_anti-Semitism

--Ben Houston 05:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

CJ, we didn't finish discussing whether to have a criticism subsection in "The left and anti-Zionism." As I see it, there are two problems with it: first, it sticks out like a sore thumb because the other sections don't have a separate criticism section; and secondly, it makes that section read badly because the first part is all good, the second all bad. I prefer the Jimbo school of thought that, as he said, "it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms." That's how I prefer to write when it can be done, and it can be done easily in this case.

I started to do it yesterday but you reverted before I'd finished, so I have no draft to show. However, you said you weren't wedded to the criticism section, so what are your objections to incorporating the pro and anti? We would need two subsections or the section will be too long, but that can be done by identifying common themes, rather than for and against. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• I've already addressed both of your concerns (see above). I'm not going to oppose any and all changes to the section; I just want to be certain the change isn't for the worse. CJCurrie 18:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll restore what I started to work on, and when it's finished (or at least tidier), maybe you could read it and let me know what you think. We can always revert again if you dislike it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added a quote from Monsignor Oesterreicher that I think has great relevance to this article. I believe it is in the right place but perhaps some of you veteran editors who have been editing this thing so harmoniously could take a look and see if that is so.--Mantanmoreland 15:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Your quote is a reference to double standards with regards to criticizing Israel's policies. But prejudice against Israel isn't the same as anti-Semitism, although it is related and there is a bridge between the two. There is a lot of material for such a topic. Maybe one solution would be to break apart what is considered to be the components of the NAS theory and deal with them in separate sections -- one of them is the argument that an underlying anti-Semitism on behalf of the critics is the motivator for what is claimed to be double standards in criticism. --Ben Houston 23:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes but note his use of the term "prejudice," meaning anti-Semitism. I think what makes this quote interesting is that Monsignor Oesterreicher was a critic of Israeli policies and also did not like it when Jewish leaders unfairly criticized the Vatican. Yet he had a clearthinking view of the whole concept of anti-Semitism. The double standard of which he speaks has been repeatedly also cited as a manifestation of the new anti-Semitism, very much as Monsignor Oesterreicher himself said. --Mantanmoreland 23:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the quote is a good one but it doesn't really belong in this article as it is -- it feels like it would be prefectly at home in an article that alleges specifically double standards with regards to criticism of Israel and the reasons for. The main issue is that the quote doesn't mention the term NAS. The connection to NAS is your own -- in your opinion he is describing a component of NAS. Thus (for the time being at least) it appears as if you did original research to make that connection. Now if someone else in a reputable source refers to Oesterreicher quote as relevant to NAS than it would pass the bar as being not OR but then you would have to mention who makes that connection and introduce the quote that way. Do you see what I mean here? The distinction between OR and non OR takes a while to get used to. --Ben Houston 23:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you are making this more complex than it really is, Ben (and actually have done that generally in your comments). The quote clearly fits in to the evolution of the concept, particularly in the context quoted. No OR involved at all, unless you include reading the source before commenting on it.--Mantanmoreland 23:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Note this earlier in the article: "To this day [1983] he continues to be a strong champion of the Jews and the state of Israel whenever he thinks prejudice is at work. " Prejudice meaning anti-Semitism.--Mantanmoreland 23:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Others may have different views, I'm just stating my thoughts. I have in the past been ripped apart by editors more aggressive than myself for doing things like your addition that on other topics, I may have been taught by incorrect example. Also, I only gave my thoughts because in your first responses to me below you mentioned this quote. --Ben Houston 23:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can't speak to who's been telling you what, but your interpretation of WP:NOR, what you posted on my talk page, is wildly off-base and wikilawyering.--Mantanmoreland 03:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It's okay, I'm not looking for a fight. I didn't even attempt to remove your quote from the context you put it in. I have though moved the historical uses of the term (that whole section, and it did contain your quote) into is own article to allow us to focus here on the modern meaning of the term. Feel free to duplicate your quote elsewhere in this article. I won't remove it. --Ben Houston 03:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The article neuters critics. It does this in two ways. First, the arguments of critics are misportrayed as less critical then they actually are. This is most obvious if one compares Brian Klug's essay "The Myth of the New Anti-Semitism" with the way his views are summarized in the article. The second method of neutering critics is by covering their views in the "What is the new anti-Semitism?" section. There are two subsections of this definition section, "An old phenomenon" and "New, but not anti-Semitism", which actually cover major criticism of the concept but they are subverted and misportrayed as implicitly supporting just with slightly different views of the topic. There should be a distinct criticism section and major critics should go there and their arguments should be accurately portrayed. Also criticisms within the criticism section should be organized topically (like the rest of the article) rather than by the name of the individual making the criticism unless absolutely necessary. --Ben Houston 21:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• I am largely in agreement with the basic points raised here. I've never been happy with the summary of Klug's article, nor with the representation of other critical views. (And frankly, I've never believed that "What is the new anti-Semitism?" is a proper section title.) CJCurrie 00:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not clear on which specific parts of the criticisms are "misportrayed" - can you give examples? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, if a person's views are misrepresented, there should be no difficulty editing the quote as we would in any other article. --Leifern 17:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree: there should be no difficulty editing such quotes. CJCurrie 17:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

CJ, I've got a few more Klug articles now, and his testimony to the British inquiry, so I'm hoping to clarify his views. The Nation article is not the best representation of them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The other serious issue with the article is its confusion of the listing of evidence of increased hostility and attacks towards Jewish people and symbols with the specific theory of NAS. The increase in hostility and attacks is real and it should be appropriately condemned and documented in Contemporary anti-Semitism. To view NAS as just describing the increase is to fundamentally misunderstand the concept (as defined by Foxman, Chesler and Klug) and the topic of this article. The concept of NAS, according to Foxman, Chesler and Klug, actually offers a way of understanding this increase as being part of a rising global coalition of anti-Semitism, the reawakening of an old hatred that is, for the most part, devoid of context. This is a specific interpretation of the evidence, an interpretation that leads one to draw specific conclusions, and it is the interpretation of this evidence that critics such as Brian Klug disagree with, not the evidence itself. (To understand where I am coming from I highly recommend reading Brian Klug's essay "The Myth of the New Anti-Semitism", I am parroting him.) --Ben Houston 21:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC) [comment edited @ 05:46, 11 September 2006)

Actually there is a second important formulation of the concept "new anti-semitism" that doesn't posit a "rising global coalition" as claimed by Foxman and Chesler. From the perspective of someone whose goal is to fight against anti-semitism, the trends which comprise the concept "new anti-semitism" share one important characteristic: they are the key areas where anti-semitism must be fought today. The new trends (as opposed to pre-existing right-wing anti-Semitism) are all being driven by non-productive, but distinct, responses to the "unfolding tragedy in Israel." In this view, there is no claim that there is any real coordination or alliances between the separate trends. But still, the separate trends, when viewed collectively as the "new anti-semitism", pose a serious threat that requires major attention -- the new anti-semitism is a true multiheaded hydra. This is how Jonathan Sacks appears to view the concept . His view is immune to the criticism of Brian Klug. --Ben Houston 05:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The article is about the modern theory of NAS, not the term "New anti-Semitism" and its various meanings thoughout history. As such the section covering other historical uses of the term, Changing meanings, is too prominent and serves as a distraction. Could we do the dab thing and create other articles for each of those separate meanings? Or, if multiple other articles is overkill, could we create an article entitled "New anti-Semitism (term)" that describes the various historical uses and meanings of the term? To ensure clarity, but it might be going too far, we could rename this article as "New anti-Semitism (concept)" or "New anti-Semitism (theory)". Or could we make use of a wiktionary entry to cover the various meanings? This will allow us to again focus on the true topic of the article. (I believe that focusing this article will help to clarify that the evidence of an increase in attacks and hostility towards Jewish people and symbols is distinct from the specific and controversial interpretation of these events offered by the theory of NAS.) --Ben Houston 21:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Not sure I understand your point, Ben. I added a comment from Monsignor Oesterreicher that was spot-on the concept but did not involve use of the term "new anti-Semitism." I think that use of the term is relevant but I think the article indeed discusses the concept, and does so quite comprehensively in fact. So I am not sure what this point addresses.--Mantanmoreland 22:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand. What are your thoughts about the two previous concerns I listed? --Ben Houston 23:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll go through the article again, but nothing stood out. On my first reading I thought that it actually was a thorough article and balanced. But I will read again.--Mantanmoreland 23:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I read it through again. Actually I really don't share your concerns. Klug's very thought-provoking commentary is given fair and very prominent and respectful treatment, so maybe I am missing your point on that. I do think there could be more on the non-Jewish clergymen and political leaders who have spoken out on this issue. It is not just a "Jewish issue."--Mantanmoreland 23:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: I have just now split out the historical uses of the term to the new article New anti-Semitism (term) to allow for a better focus in this article. I think they are appropriately linked together. --Ben Houston 03:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been editing this article for very long as you know, but I am a bit surprised you would engage in such a significant action without talking about it previously in this article. I must tell you that I think that there is no justification whatsoever for combing out the "historical uses of the term" as a separate article. The article you created is a candidate for speedy deletion if I have ever seen one. I suggest you not proceed with it. --Mantanmoreland 03:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted. In so doing there was an almost-edit conflict and I unintentionally reverted another editor's more minor changes. Whatever happens to those is a sep issue -- I strongly suggest that the massive move that I reverted not be reinstated.--Mantanmoreland 03:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey Mantanmoreland. I'm going to make a few more edits tonight if that is okay with you -- I am allowed to edit the article. I am not a vandal, I have been editing Wikipedia for over a year and racked up around 4000 edits now. I am not reverting your quote addition (though I moved it), could you not just blindly revert my attempt at improving the article? Thanks. --Ben Houston 04:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I actually agree with BHouston on moving the piece out. The article is way to long, and it is a rather seperate issue. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Bhouston, I agree with Mantanmoreland that the massive changes you've made need to be discussed first. I don't see the purpose in creating a fork from this article. I also don't understand the differentiation you are attempting to make in creating separate articles for "theory" and "term". Not only that but in the chunk you removed to the new "term" article , you added a new large section on "modern usage" which then goes on to discuss "concept"...which I thought you were supposedly trying to differentiate from "term". I think the solution to alleviating the length of this article is to address it in THIS article and NOT to create a POV fork that just adds even more verbage. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 19:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree with Ben Houston here. While the tentative steps towards New anti-Semitism (term) may be a bit rough... this is typical of a newly created branch off of an existing article. (→Netscott) 22:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)