Talk:New antisemitism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Denying Israel's right to exist=antisemitism

I would like those who argue that it is not antisemitic to deny Israel's right to exist to please certify for the record that one can argue that Egypt, Norway, Spain, Mexico, and any number of nation-states should be dismantled without causing offense to Egyptians, Norwegians, Spaniards, or Norwegians. Otherwise, it is patently apparent that denying Israel's right to exist is antisemitic. --Leifern 20:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Individual editors' opinions are not relevant to the matter. Talk pages are for working on articles, not for political debate. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

It's actually a useful question, although not in this context. Leifern could perhaps ask himself whether it would be "antinorgist" to complain if Norway sent tanks into Sami villages or excluded the Sami people from its polity? James James 05:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

To respond to that by insisting that Norway should not exist as a Norwegian state might be antinorgist, yes. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think Norway is an ethnically based state though, in the same way as, say, Libya is. There's no such thing as "norgism" that I know of. I made it up. And I was rather hoping to draw the line between disapproving of actions and disapproving of the actors. Dismally, it seems. I completely agree with you that a disproportionate response to the question would be suspicious but I think I gave an example of a criticism that wasn't disproportionate. Do you have a view on that, rather than the straw man you proposed? James James 10:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The particular criticism (hypothetically: "don't send tanks into other people's villages") isn't the point. It's the response (that the tank-senders are not worthy of self-determination) that's the problem. And the nature of the response is such that one suspects it would have been made anyway, tanks or no tanks, which, indeed, may have been the reason for the tanks in the first place. It's a complicated dynamic, in other words. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I entirely agree that it's complicated but I think all I'm saying is that it's complicated both ways. There are many roads to the belief that tanks should not invade villages, and it's a broad brush that paints all people who arrive at the belief as "antisemitic".

Whether self-determination means the same thing as "entitlement to a particular piece of land" is a different question, one that clearly can be asked of both Israel and the Palestinian state. One needn't be antisemitic to ask it. James James 23:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

It's off topic, but while Norway is not exactly an ethnically based state, Bokmål and Nynorsk aren't much older than Modern Hebrew and Norwegian nationalism is only marginally older than Zionism. And, offhand, the Sami analogy to the Palestinians seems reasonable. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

It is off topic and consequently, I'm done with it. However, yes, I think that I'd have a problem with the suggestion that the people who identify as Norwegians should not have a state if they attacked Sami villages. After all, the Germans destroyed half of Europe, and no one suggested they should be denied a country. James James 23:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I object to drawing up these analogies about other countries on the basis that it implicitly equalizes Israel with Judaism. The only way that these analogies would be applicable would be if we are asking whether denying Israel's right to exist is anti-Israeli rather than anti-semitic. An important difference. -- Dissident (Talk) 00:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Israel is a Jewish state, to single it out for desctruction is antisemitic. The analogies go further because the Jews had their country/ies in the Land of Israel and never gave up the hope to return. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 00:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

"Israel is a Jewish state, to single it out for desctruction [sic] is antisemitic." <- You really think you can get Wikipedia to just assert this here? No, of course not. So why are you spouting your personal political rhetoric at a place where it absolutely serves no purpose? Wikipedia is not Usenet! -- Dissident (Talk) 01:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It's true that this page is to discuss the article, Dissident, but you expressed a personal view too, as did I. Perhaps we should all stop. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with expressing a personal view as long as there is a reasonable chance of advancing the discussion on how to improve an article. If articles pertaining to anti-Semitism implicitly assume Judaism and Israel are synonymous, something not even Humus sapiens is asserting here, then that's a NPOV violation and must be addressed. -- Dissident (Talk) 00:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

FYI, Judaism is a religion. The State of Israel is a state. Who, other than Dissident, implies that they are synonyms? For "spouting", see WP:CIV and WP:NPA. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 06:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

If you agree with that premise, then it follows that Leifern is comparing apples with oranges. -- Dissident (Talk) 00:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

This seems to be a sensitive issue, but one has to be cautious before drawing conclusions. Anti-Zionism is by no means the same as anti-Semitism. Even within the Nazi Party, for example, there were some in favor of the expulsion of Jews to remote places (such as Israel). Also, within the state of Israel and outside, there are lots of Jews who do not support the Israeli government or its establishment, but they're still Jewish and tend to associate with other Jews. Are you saying they're antisemitic? Aucaman^Talk 22:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

To Leifern and others: Simply put, I am a Jew and I don't think any country that gives one group legal status over others is a very good idea, even if I am one of the beneficiaries. I would like to see the legal entity of Israel cease to exist and a non-ethnic-nationalist state with true pluralism take its place. Can I feel this only if I am secretly prejudiced against my own people?

Do you really think that the only reason someone could, say, oppose the idea of forming a Gypsy state, would be prejudice against the Gypsies? Do you really think that the only reason a Native American could criticize the right of the US to exist would be prejudice against white Americans?

The point is, there is more than one reasonable position on the matter. Brw12 13:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that the comparison between israeli-flag-burning is against jews generally. There are also Arabs and Christians who feel israelian, and a critique against the (-harsh!-) policy of Israel against Palestinians in the last years shouldn't be judged as antisemitic, nor of course be an excuse for "real" antisemitists. But telling that antisemitism is a sad caracteristic of France is a dumb cliché, and everyone who's ever lived in France will agree with me! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.76.9.36 (talk • contribs) 20 Feb 2006.

Blood libel

Re: the poster at New anti-Semitism#Incidents in the United States. I actually hadn't noticed this before; I noticed it now because no one had bothered putting a license tag on the image; I've labeled it as {{politicalposter}}. Sure strikes me as a variant on blood libel against Jews, especially the reference to "slaughtered according to Jewish Rites", suggesting that child-murder is a religious matter. Would it be legitimate to say as much in the article, or would that cross the line of original research? -- Jmabel | Talk 11:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it counts as original research to point out something this blatent. --NHSavage 11:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe not, but I think it would be better to find a source that has noted it rather than point out the obvious. If no one ever has pointed it out, then it's OR to do so. I say this only as a matter of correctness so far as policy's concerned. It's as clear a case of the blood libel as you could wish to see (or not wish to see, if you know what I mean). James James 11:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

True. The source for this poster is titled Blood Libel.--NHSavage 11:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

That's on what appears at a quick look to be an anonymous "Messianic Judaism" website. Unless I'm missing something, that's not a citable source, even if in this case I think they are correct. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is the president of the student union discussing action taken against what he describes as the section of the flier "suggesting the ancient 'blood libel'". Is The Forward acceptable? I'm not familiar enough with American newspapers to know whether this is a serious paper, but it seems to be one. In my view, sourcing to either would be okay. Other views? James James 00:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Yup, both are good sources. Thanks for finding them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Definitely good citations. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Incidents in UK

I have done quite a lot of work on this section and I hope it is now improved both from NPOV and references point of view. However, I do have a POV on these matters (especially relating to AUT) and so I hope other will take a look at what I've done and check that my POV has not unduly influenced what I've done.--NHSavage 17:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Primarily the left

Although I agree with SlimVirgin that accusations of anti-Semitism directed at the left are new, the article's examples of anti-Semitism are not primarily leftist denunciations of anti-Zionism, but rather a mixed bag of contemporary anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. Consequently, I think that the introductory passages should match the article's content. The alternatives would be to clarify the introduction, so that the reader is clearer that we are talking about all kinds of accusations of contemporary anti-Semitism, or to remove from the article the "old" anti-Semitism, which is not perpetrated by the left. James James 00:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Woah! Have I made a mistake! I see an article that in several places describes anti-Semitic incidents, mostly of the old school, but in its introduction says that the charge of "new anti-Semitism" is primarily aimed at leftists. I didn't realise leftists were doing all the "verbal abuse, vandalism, desecration of property, abusive literature, threats and physical violence" reported by the Community Security Trust. I thought that was the same old people who've been doing it for a couple of thousand years. I didn't realise that the radical Islamists in France were leftists either. Nor that leftists had started accusing Jews of eating Christian babies. The sources that I found didn't say anything like that, but presumably, Viriditas's "research" has found something different. Naturally I won't revert this article again, and I'm taking it from my watchlist. James James 01:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Chesler in particular states that the new anti-Semitism is new because it is espoused by progressives: "...performed by politically correct people in the name of anticolonialism, anti-imperialism, antiracism, and pacifism." This is in contrast to the old anti-Semitism, which is embraced by right-wing racist groups. --Viriditas 01:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the content needs to match the intro, but the solution is to flesh out the content, not to make the intro inaccurate. All the books on the new anti-Semitism that I have read make it clear that it's a phenomenon emanating primarily (although not exclusively) from the left. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Surely you meant to say "restrict the content only to those things that actually match the intro"? Anyway, you're welcome to write whatyou like. I only came here on RC patrol and I don't have any great interest in slugging it out. James James 01:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute. Are we now going to make Wikipedia endorse the validity of this type of accusations? This a very controversial subject and the intro (and everything for that matter) should completely stay away from anything close to suggesting that the dust has in any way settled on this (instead of just leaving a token paragraph at the end for the "other side"). -- Dissident (Talk) 00:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced strawman arguments

We need sources for all of these:

• Critics of the concept contend that it only serves to equate legitimate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism.

• Opponents of the concept of New anti-Semitism assert that:
  • Antipathy toward Israel's policies, its character as a Jewish state, or even its existence, does not necessarily amount to anti-Semitism.
    • People may have legitimate reasons to criticize or condemn the actions of any state, and Israel is as subject to this as any other.
    • There are Jewish groups and Jewish individuals who hold views critical of Israeli policy; some of these (though far fewer) even question the legitimacy of Israel's character as a Jewish state. Some Haredi groups regard the state of Israel and Zionism as secularist heresies, and a few fringe organizations, most notably Neturei Karta, have called for the creation of a unitary state of Palestine in the region. A minority of secular and non-Haredi Jews also oppose the state of Israel and Zionism from a standpoint of anti-nationalism. Former Knesset member Tamar Gozansky is one such figure, while prominent Jewish intellectuals such as Hannah Arendt and Martin Buber articulated similar views in the mid-twentieth century.
    • Many left-wing groups within mainstream Israeli politics hold views regarding some Israeli government policies similar to those criticized as anti-Semitic when expressed by left-wing groups outside Israel.
  • A frequent target for accusations of new anti-Semitism — the socialist Left — maintains a principled stand against any form of bigotry.
  • Accusations of anti-Semitism may be used to discredit those who criticize the actions of the Israeli government.
  • Comparing Israel with regimes known for repressive policies is commonplace within Israeli politics as well, with right-wing Zionists comparing Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, and Ariel Sharon to Adolf Hitler.
  • Palestinians and their sympathizers have reasons to oppose Israel independently of its connection to the Jewish people. Some of these sympathizers bear ill will toward the Jewish people, while others do not.
  • Frivolous accusations of anti-Semitism could undermine the struggle against more serious examples of it.

• In turn, critics of this view believe that associating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism is intended to stifle debate, deflect attention from valid criticisms, and taint anyone opposed to Israeli actions and policies. They point out that, during debate over the establishment of the State of Israel, most notably, many Hassidic Jews considered this manifestation of Zionism heretical.

Here the anonymous "critics" are not speaking for themselves, but serving up strawman arguments for the wikipedia editors to shoot down. For each statement attributed to "critics" there should be some indication of which specific critic is speaking and that these are the terms the "critic" prefers to use. If, as I expect, these statements supposedly from "critics of the idea of a new anti-Semitism" cannot each be specifically sourced, they should be removed. If they will not be removed, they should be replaced with stronger arguments. TopRank 04:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The article itself links to, and summarizes, statements from critics of the term "New anti-Semitism". Please feel free to read them. If you are aware of other critics, and can provide some encyclopedic links, they would be most welcome. However, you cannot make up your own arguments; this is original research, which is prohibited by Wikipedia policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Totally disputed?

The article currently bears the {{totallydisputed}} tag - who is disputing what? The tag has been there since October and if there is no dispute, then it should be removed. Izehar 10:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Izehar. Diderot added it but hasn't edited the page since, so I think it's okay to remove it and have done so. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Cleaned up citations

I've done my best to clean up the citations on this page into a reasonably uniform style. This added a lot of information, because title and author information was missing before for nearly all online citations. There were a few dead links. For some of these I could easily find appropriate substitutes. I'm afraid the Internet Archive was no use, possibly because some of these were too recent to be up there yet, or possibly because they aren't going to be archived. Without anything but a blind link, it was pretty hard to identify appropriate substitute citations.

Currently,

1. The citations I couldn't verify—and some statements that were simply lacking any citation—are marked with {{fact}}.
2. There are two places where I could really use some help on citation of Hebrew-language articles, because I can't read Hebrew. And, needless to say, if those citations don't bear out the claims made, I'd have no idea.
3. I made some (very minimal) use of the name attribute of the ref element to make multiple references to the same note. I'm not sure I like that, though. We could have duplicate notes instead, with different, sequential indexes. What do other people think?

BTW, this new footnoting system is definitely a simplifier. I recommend it. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Chomsky

I've restored the characterization of Chomsky as an anarchist. His politics are more relevant here than his being a linguist (though I did not remove the fact that he is a linguist). If there was question whether Chomsky considers himself an anarchist (the terse edit summary suggests someone may have doubted this), I assume that the following will be more than adequate citation: . That's all from the website of Z magazine, to which he is an important contributor. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Those who describe Chomsky as Jewish are trying to increase the credibility of this holocust denier - since it is well known that many of the worst anti-semites are Jewish (cf. Adam Shapiro), any reference to Chomsky's "jewishness" is irrelevent and should be deleted. Incorrect 17:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

One of the made administrators has just deleted my edit regarding Chomsky being of Jewish origin. Interestingly, the sites in the article itself to Chomsky do not refer to his Jewishnes (sic) at all, merely refer to the definitins of "Jews". Another example of wikipedia being gamed by those with a pov. Incorrect 18:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Islamic bookstores

I've restored Unbehagen's deletion that Islamic stores in the UK are increasingly stocking anti-Semitic material, including Mein Kampf. Unbehagen argues that, as this book is available in many large bookstores in the UK, its availability in Islamic stores is not surprising. However, there are no large Islamic stores in the UK selling books; those that do are very small and focus on material relevant to Islam. It's therefore notable that increasing numbers of them appear to believe that Mein Kampf has such relevance. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a good arguement - I hadn't seen it that way. BUT - if the nature of the Islamic bookstores is as fragmentary as you suggest how can anyone have done a meaningfull survey? This does look like work taken from a Blog - so do you still think we should include. Unbehagen 15:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Grammar mistakes

Notice the grammar mistake in the anti-Semitic cartoon:"Sharon will allows you..." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bombshell (talk • contribs) 21 Feb 2006.

Citation needed

I added a few tags for where citation is neede. This article lacks sources in a major way and in the same time it make sweeping arguments. Clean up is badly needed. // Liftarn 09:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Bernard Lewis on the New Anti-Semitism

I have added an external link to a very recent and equally insightful article on the New Anti-Semitism by the renowned British historian Bernard Lewis. Enjoy. Pecher ^Talk 22:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Examples

For more examples of New Anti-Semitism, follow the repeated attemps of some Wikipedians to re-introduce the racist use of the word "Aryan" into Wikipedia. Follow the discussions here and see examples on the following articles: Persian people, Tajik people, Iranian peoples, Aryan, and Indo-Iranians. Your help would be appreciated. Aucaman^Talk 03:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

HEM !

• "Aryan" does have a precise technical meaning. That it was used by the Nazis changes nothing to that. Forbidding the use of "Aryan" is like calling the Japanese nazis because they use the svatiska to label buddhist temples
• Even if the word in question as utterly Nazi, I fail to understand how this would be new antisemitism rather than regular antisemitism. Rama 09:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• The only accepted meaning today is when referring to Indo-Aryans (because the word was used a lot in the Rig-Veda). Indo-Aryans have nothing to do with Iranians, especially Persians. The word was reintroduced in the Persian language in a racist-nationalist campaign parallel with that of Nazi Germany. The Iranian society was split into Aryans and Semites, with Aryans of course being the suprerior people. You're saying the Nazi's used the word in a racist manner, so it's not possible for any other people to use it in a racist manner? Well these people are using it in a racist manner and it has nothing to do with the history of the word. The history of the word is only used to give justification for its usage. In context they're not really related. See the discussion there for more information.

• Read the definition: "the perceived contemporary international resurgence of anti-Jewish incidents and attacks on Jewish symbols, as well as the acceptance of anti-Semitic beliefs and their expression in public discourse." This certainly falls within the definition. Aucaman^Talk 14:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I am very dubious about this "definition", precisely. What makes this a legitimate concept, more that, say, "New fascism" ? There have been numerous "perceived contemporary international resurgence of fascist incidents and acceptance of fascist beliefs and their expression in public discourse". Yes I fail to see "New Whaterism" at every corner, and I still fail to see what is so specific about anti-semitism that it should have a "new itself". Rama 23:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're attempting to achieve here, Rama. While you may well be "dubious about this definition", the fact remains that the phenomenon has been defined, described, and written about in many books, and dozens of articles. The Talk: page isn't really the place for advancing your own personal views on the subject. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

First, that are books and articles about it does not make what the books and articles say accurate or true.

Furthermore, I do not have personal views, I have logical problems with this article: the definition cited by Aucaman is: "the perceived contemporary international resurgence of anti-Jewish incidents and attacks on Jewish symbols, as well as the acceptance of anti-Semitic beliefs and their expression in public discourse.". This makes "New anti-semitism" essentially a phenomenon created by the "many books, and dozens of articles" to which you refer: what creates this so-called "New anti-semitism" is the perception that the people who describe it have of it, rather than its nature. As such, I find the subject very confusing, especially since our article tends to blur the line between the perception of facts and facts, and I wonder to which extend it is accurate.

Of course, this might be my own personal views on logics and ethics of writing. Rama 10:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, in between, the definition has been changed yet again into "the contemporary international resurgence of anti-Jewish incidents and attacks...";

the difference between the "New" and "Old" anti-semitism is explained as "distinguish a form of anti-Semitism regarded as differing in its rhetoric, its professed purpose,, and its place on the political spectrum from the old anti-Semitism, which derived from the Right and was motivated by racial theory, religion, or nationalism. The new anti-Semitism is closely associated with the Left and its opposition to Zionism, and to the existence of the state of Israel as a Jewish homeland." (note that the formulation is again more related to the perception of fact than facts themselves: "is closely associated": by who ?).

But to illustrate the concept, we are presented with a Jewish grave defaced with a Nazi symbol – hardly a Left-wing symbol. This sort of zig-zag formulation and even conceptualisation goes all through the article and makes it very confusing to me. Rama 10:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure it's possible that the many books and articles on the topic, written by various well-known authors, or found in reputable sources, are, in fact, completely wrong, but you'd have to find other reputable sources to refute them; your own personal concern with the concept is not particularly relevant. Regarding the definition, it's pretty much the same as it was 3 months ago, and the forumulation which presents it more as perception than fact is in deference both to NPOV, and to various editors (like yourself) who were opposed to the notion that it existed at all. Finally, the photograph does not really illustrate the concept well; a far better one would be the rather common "Star of David = Swastika" signs you see at various rallies. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Rama, all Wikipedia ever does is report the perceptions of reputable sources. We don't decide what is true. Reputable sources, some of them scholarly, are writing extensively about a new form of anti-Semitism that comes from the political left, so we simply report what they say. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

My remark about books does not attempt to dismiss the point, I was just trying to remind Jayjg, who is so demanding when he requires proofs from others, that mentioning "books and articles" can be done about any subject, and thus constitute no guarantee in itself, depanding on the degree of crackpotism. Among one of the few things which I have understood about this "New antisemitism" is that it seems quite controverted.

You both assume very much of my desire to introduce my opinions in this article, and of my opinions themselves, for that matters.

"New Antisemitism" is a subject with which I am not familiar. It was also the case of, say, Tunnel effect a few years ago, but I have come across texts which allowed me to grasp some understanding of the matter. This article keeps coming back and fro about what is and what is percieved, says one thing and illustrates it with its opposite, and I find this unsettling.

I assume that reporting ones impressions about an article on its talk page so that the authors can improve it is not inappropriate, is it ? Rama 21:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The "repeated attempts of some Wikipedians" to re-introduce the use of the word "Aryan" have very little to do with Anti-Semitism, and a lot to do with the increase in Indian and Iranian contributors, for whom the word labels an important aspect of their culture. Many of them, especially Indians, resent the association of the word with Nazism and wish to emphasise their "ownership" of it (to a lesser extent the same applies to the swastika). They also resent having to apologise for words and symbols used in their culture just because some people thousands miles away used them once for their own purposes. These users rarely have racist intentions in my experience, though they can sometimes be highly nationalistic. The Nazi use of the term Aryan was certainly anti-Semitic, because it functioned as a synonym for "non-Jew", but strictly speaking the specifically racist aspects of Nazism concerned their claims for the superiority of the Nordic race. Yet no-one gets worried about the use of the word "Nordic" on Wikpedia. Paul B 19:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I concur completely with this last statement. - Jmabel | Talk 16:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Abuse of the {{fact}} template

On February 18, 2006, User:Liftarn inserted no fewer than 19 {{fact}} requests for citation into the article. In the majority of cases, the sentences in question were immediately preceded or followed by direct citations. In a small minority of cases the citations were in linked articles, or in were websites which had gone bad. In one case he inserted 3 requests for citation inside a direct quote from a source, and in another he actually added his own POV into a direct quotation! This is a gross abuse of the template and the editing process. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Disruption is not unusual for Liftarn. The same user inserted patent nonsense into the List of unrecognized countries and engaged in wholesale removal of sourced material, including no fewer than 33 (!) endnotes, on Dhimmi . Pecher ^Talk 09:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Liftarn

Except for possibly (and barely) the first sentence "Disruption is not unusual for Liftarn" this doesn't read like a personal attack. It reads like a description of your conduct, and suggests a pattern that could make someone appropriately doubt your good faith. - Jmabel | Talk 16:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Quoting out of context

I've removed this quote from the "state of the controversy#examples cited" section:

However Eli Muller wrote "Some Jews will invariably denounce any criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic, using a powerful allegation as a barrier to dialogue. /../ many negative things can and should be said about Israel's current policies without the speaker being subjected to charges of anti-Semitism." ("Locating the hate in anti-Zionism", Yale Daily News, February 28, 2003 )

This was added by Liftarn on January 12. Apart from the fact that it's an undergraduate writing in a student newspaper, which makes it an inappropriate source, if you read the article, you'll see that it in fact says exactly the opposite of the impression given by the quote, namely that a lot of the anti-Zionism the writer encounters on campus boils down to "bigotry" and "fanaticism."

When selecting quotes, it's important to stay true to the original tone and intent of the piece. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Without passing judgement on the particular quotation, I'd consider the Yale Daily News generally citable. It is one of the probably half-dozen leading student newspapers in the U.S., and standards are probably better than plenty of professionally run local papers. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Source request

I've moved the following from the page because it need one or more sources:

Some have questioned whether any large portion of opposition to Israel is actually rooted in anti-Semitism; some have argued that the increase in anti-Semitism among Arabs and Muslims, while lamentable, is a nearly inevitable outgrowth of the hostility between Israel and much of the Arab world, and is strictly an epiphenomenon of that conflict.

I'd be surprised if any reputable scholar in a relevant field were to argue that Arab and Muslim anti-Semitism is "strictly an epiphenomenon" of the Arab-Israeli conflict, given the anti-Semitism that predated the State of Israel. Bernard Lewis has pointed out that some leaders in the Muslim world are almost at pains to point out that they're anti-Semitic, not just anti-Israel, as a matter of national or personal pride. For example, after President Khatami of Iran denied that his govt was anti-Semitic, a newspaper known to express the views of Khamenei appeared to correct him, saying it was important not to exaggerate the difference between the Jews and the Zionist regime because: "[t]he history of the beginnings of Islam is full of Jewish plots against the Prophet Muhammad and of murderous attacks by Jews ..." Lewis also cites the daughter of President Nasser, who complained about a film portraying her father as anti-Zionist but not anti-Semitic. Lewis writes (quoting a newspaper article about the incident): "she objected to a passage in [the] film indicating that 'Nasser was not against the Jews, but against Zionism, because she wanted to portray her father as a hero of the anti-Jewish struggle'." (Lewis in Those who forget the past by Ron Rosenbaum (ed)) It could still be argued that, although it's clearly anti-Semitism and not just opposition to the govt of Israel, it's still only an outgrowth of the latter, but it's a difficult position to maintain, so it'd be good to attribute it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Sharon, Hobeika and the Sabra and Shatila massacre

Anyone interested in writing on the question of why Ariel Sharon is held responsible for the Sabra and Shatila massacre, but Elie Hobeika, who actually ordered the killings, was not. My understanding is that Hobeika was well-received in various European capitals where Sharon is persona non grata. This seems to be support the argument that anti-Zionism relies on double-standards with respect to human rights.

Adam Holland 18:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

IDENTIFICATION OF ANTISEMITIC STATEMENTS AS "JEWS"

Some who edit consider it important that those attacking Jews be called "Jews," as if a person of Jewish origin is incapable of being anti semitic or anti Jewish. It is clear that many of Jewish ancestry are among the most vehement anti semites, cf. Adam Shapiro; it therefor adds nothing to an anti semites credibility to label him/her as Jewish - such identification should be deleted, or, as I have done, indicated that the person is of Jewish heritage but does not follow the Jewish faith nor identify with the Jewish people. Incorrect 17:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

Explaining my recent edits

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

I have two problems with this statement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I should also clarify why I made these changes.

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

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

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

TreveX's edits (on 11 April)

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

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

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

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

The sentence states that opposition to the state of Israel:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Often

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[...]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[...]

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

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

[...]

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

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

CJCurrie 04:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perhaps I can suggest another means of resolving this situation:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article Image

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another problem with the introduction

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

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

The problem is as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Query

CJ, what does edit mean?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SV,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'll try again ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for withdrawing the remark.

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

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

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

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

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

I would request that you address my concerns.

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

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

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

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

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

The New Anti-Semitism is a myth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another comment on sources

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

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

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

Please stop speculating as to my motivations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

which you've been trying to do since February

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CJCurrie 00:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Disputed tag

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

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

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

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

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

Disgraceful

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

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

ʜ==Status of term==

Posted to SV's talk page and copied here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The intro you put up is factually inaccurate

This is from the intro you support: "The new anti-Semitism is associated with the Left and its opposition to Zionism and to the existence of the state of Israel as a Jewish homeland."

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggestions

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

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

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

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

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

Then the article shouldn't say that they do.

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

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

"Even leftists such as Alan Derschowitz claims this."

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

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

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

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

3RR

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

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

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

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

But now you keep undoing the new header!

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

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

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

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

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

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

This section is not about the contents of the article.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reverting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can someone please comment on the compromise proposed below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q. And today?

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

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

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

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

Alternative proposal

Okay. I propose the following sentence change:

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

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

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

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

The ADL stuff talks about the right-wing too:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yet another proposal

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

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

Then can we please have references to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Critics

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

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

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

Perhaps we should also cite the arguments of Tariq Ali:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pecher, the sources clearly support the statement:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Majority opinion"

Response to something SV posted on my talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question for SlimVirgin

(edit conflict as usual)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OR

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

"of course Gable was talking about the new AS"

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

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

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

Date of publication: 1974.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The salient section of the Pipes article reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Homey 04:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Try googling "is the new anti-Semitism".

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

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

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

We also have "homophobia is the new anti-Semitism"

"Islamophobia is the new anti-semitism"

"Hatred of Fox is the new anti-Semitism"

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

"anti-Americanism is the new anti-Semitism"

"anti-Catholicism is the new anti-Semitism."

"anti-Papism is the new anti-Semitism"

"Anti-Americanism is the new anti-Semitism among the British"

"Anti-Americanism is the new anti-Semitism"

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

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

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

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

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

OR in the introduction

I have removed the following sentence:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SlimVirgin,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question for Viriditas

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alternate meanings

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

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

Mediation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Medition 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A "term" used to argue?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More irony?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My responses:

(i) What sources did I remove, exactly?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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