Talk:New antisemitism/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Changing the Subject bad parallel

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obfuscation over mediation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

From: slimvirgin

To: (name deleted)

Date: May 6, 2006 9:38 PM

Subject: Re: New anti-Semitism

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two comments:

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

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

CJCurrie 21:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Mediation continued

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I can give three responses to the second question:

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

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

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

Mediation

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

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

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

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

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

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

To Add to Criticism Section: Juan Cole

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

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

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

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

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

Delete this farcical article

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

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

Original "socialist anti-Zionism"

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

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

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

Mediation: initial thoughts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mel,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

see above.

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

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

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

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

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

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

This definition I don't have any problem with.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CJCurrie 01:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Second version

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are several difficulties with the proposed version above:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Renaming article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HOTR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copied from the mediation page:

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

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

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

A subsequent edit on 3 January 2006 marks another significant change, including the first insertion of the phrase, "The new anti-Semitism is closely associated with the Left and its opposition to Zionism, and to the existence of the state of Israel as a Jewish homeland." This is stated as a matter of fact, although the previous sentence indicates that this "new form" is only "alleged".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I thought you were recusing yourself from the page?

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

the whole topic is an pro-Israel propaganda

if a person is anti-israel does not make him anti-semitic....I don't call for despise or killing of jews...however, I don't believe they had any rights in Israel now...that does not make me an anti-semitic arab.. I would like you to add a paragraph that expains how the jews where treated in arab lands before israel was created compared to europe in the days of the "classical anti-semitism"...if any body says that they were not treated normally..he is a lier....and by the way....if they considers themselves semitic...I consider my self semitic too....in fact old arabs and israelites were on the same genetical origins....we were all the sons of SAM....MOREOVER...WE and THEM are the sons of ABRAHAM....they are the sons of ISAAQ and we are the sons of ISHMAEL...they do recognize ISHMAEL.

Sourcing claims for "Country-specific incidents

I'm going to concentrate on the UK but I'm sure my concerns apply to other countries too:

National Union of Students There are concerns that the support for Palestine...it should develop procedures for dealing with allegations of discrimination.[53]

I'm not sure about this bit. It is a bit parochial, a few leaflets and comments are bad, but are they really a national issue?

Academic Boycott of Israel

At the same time that the above allegations about NUS were made, some Israeli academics were facing a boycott by the AUT [54][55] The academic boycott was at the behest of nearly sixty Palestinian groups [56] and, in line with that call, contained an exemption for "any conscientious Israeli academics and intellectuals opposed to their state's colonial and racist policies". The motions passed at AUT conference called for a boycott of the universities of Haifa (due to alleged mistreatment of Ilan Pappé) and Bar-Ilan (for awarding degrees to students from the College of Judea and Samaria, based in the Ariel settlement). This was seen by many on both sides as the first step to a wider boycott being pushed by the proponents [57]

The boycott was overturned at an emergency conference held on 26 May 2005. Reasons cited for the decision were: the damage to academic freedom, the hampering of dialogue and peace effort between Israelis and Palestinian, and that boycotting Israel alone would be bigotry. The boycott was described as antisemitic by some groups and individuals [57], most prominently the Engage group [58] while there was also much opposition to the boycott on other grounds such as damaging academic freedom or being counterproductive [59]. Others defended the boycott and rejected accusations of anti-Semitism.[60][61]

This is a bit more substantial, but the references are a bit pants, [57] is an accusation of anti-semitism (from Julie Burchill!) and doesn't really qualify as "some groups and individuals", there is a better source ([58] Engage), but these are the only two claims that the situation was anti-semitic. With [59], [60], and [61] saying that it isn't. So the section as a whole is misleading. It needs rephrasing so that the accusations of anti-semitism come first, and it also needs some better sources for the it-is-anti-semitic side, I'm sure there were more credible people that Burchill saying it.

Ken Livingstone Journalists and Jewish groups also protested against London's controversial mayor Ken Livingstone for meeting with controversial Muslim scholar and preacher Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who has supported Palestinian suicide bombings against Israeli military targets.[62][63][64]

al-Qaradawi's visit was indeed controversial, and he has been condemned as being anti-semitic from many quarters, but there is nothing here that says anyone called Livingstone anti-semitic, or that this represents an anti-semitic 'incident'. At the very least this could do with rephrasing and retitling (i.e. 'Visit by Yusuf al-Qaradawi'). Surprised there's no mention of the concentration camp thing, although that'd be even harder to phrase I suppose.

George Galloway Also, during the 2005 UK General election, the election for the constituency of Bethnal Green and Bow in London's most heavily Muslim district was tainted by incidents of tyre-slashing and vicious verbal assaults on the incumbent Labour candidate Oona King, who is half African-American (from a U.S. emigrant) and half-Jewish. King's support for the war in Iraq, which was unpopular with many British voters and with Muslims in particular, may also have been instrumental in her unseating by George Galloway, candidate for the new, anti-war RESPECT Party. According to BBC News online "Ms King ratcheted up the tension when she accused Mr Galloway's supporters of anti-Semitism following an egg-throwing at a memorial to Jewish war dead". Former Labour MP Tony Banks accused Galloway of exploiting racial politics to win the seat, which Galloway denied (although he stood by a statement he had made during the campaign that King "had been responsible for the deaths of many people in Iraq with blacker faces than hers".[65]

Again with this one the references aren't very good and it is phrased badly, basically being about the King vs. Galloway election campaign, not the allegations of anti-Semitism. The allegation of anti-Semitism is by King against Galloway's supporters (not Galloway himself, she's not that stupid), so the article should reflect that, the only reference is [65] which simply says ""Ms King ratcheted up the tension when she accused Mr Galloway's supporters of anti-Semitism following an egg-throwing at a memorial to Jewish war dead" but a more indepth analysis would be something like . --Coroebus 08:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Classic anti-Semitism

Please link to Classic anti-Semitism in the article once it is unprotected. Article20 12:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Remove protection?

This article has been fully protected for about seven weeks, extremely long for wikipedia standards. No progress has been made in the discussion for the last week. Are the parties moving toward mediation or some other form of dispute resolution? If not, then I will formally request unprotection. Calwatch 23:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it might be advisable to wait for Mel's next comments on the article (though I believe most of us are willing to accept his wording for the introduction). CJCurrie 01:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, this article has been protected for a ludicrously long period. What could Mel say before unprotection that he couldn't say equally clearly afterwards? --Tony Sidaway 06:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll adopt my usual process. I'm going to unprotect this article but will engage in an aggressive poicy against anyone who, after over two months of protection, edit wars. --Tony Sidaway 01:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Come on: make the controversy clear

If future edit wars are to be avoided, the inherent controversy of the idea has to be made clear at the outset.

The article should be clear in the first paragraph that the concept of "new anti-semitism" is the idea that attacks on Israel/Zionism (and maybe also the US?) encourage/are manifestations of/are informed by anti-semitism. This is the real meaning of the phrase, as made clear in the fourth paragraph "Proponents of the term "new anti-Semitism" argue that it is associated with the Left, anti-Americanism etc ". That is why the idea is controversial - lots of people support and lots dispute this linkage. In contrast, no-one disputes that anti-semitism still exists.

However, in the most gormlessly-POV fashion, the article (at points) tries to present new anti-semitism as a neutral catch-all term for ALL modern anti-semitism, as if it was a term that in itself implied no "association" with other political ideas, eg anti-Zionism. The 1st line reads: "New anti-Semitism refers to the contemporary international resurgence of anti-Jewish incidents" If this is all the phrase meant, it wouldnt be so politically charged. It would also be largely redundant.

Basically, the first paragraph needs to be completely re-written to make clear what the concept of "new antisemitism" generally implies, beyond a banal statement that antisemtitism still exists, and (in outline) why these extra implications are so controversial.

--Danward 14:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected

I'm going to edit based on my comments in Talk:New_anti-Semitism#Sourcing_claims_for_.22Country-specific_incidents so could we discuss them now? --Coroebus 09:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

All the incidents mentioned are regarded as examples of the new anti-Semitism i.e. coming from the left, related to radical anti-Zionism etc. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

They may well be, but they are not sourced that way. --Coroebus 11:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we can expect the words "new anti-Semitism" to appear in every single report we reference. We've defined it, and we've linked to many sources who are defining it. The definition is:

It is a form of Judenhass that emanates from the left. It is characterized by the demonization of the world's only Jewish state and of Jews as an ethnicity and a religion. Israel's right to exist as an equal member of the world community is denied. The Jewish people's right of self-determination is denied. Double standards are applied, whereby the actions of the Jewish state are judged according to a different standard from the actions of all the neighboring states around her. Jews as a people are held collectively responsible for the actions of the Jewish state. Symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism are used: for example, blood libels are resurrected, the Jewish state and Jewish people are associated with wild conspiracy theories involving Jews or Zionists or Israelis plotting to take over the world, or being in control of other governments, or being responsible behind the scenes for various acts of terror mistakenly attributed to others. Arab and Islamic anti-Semitism are excused and ignored. Straw-man attacks are made, whereby Jews are alleged to claim that any criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism, and that is then used to condemn Jewish groups as unreasonable, and to deny that there is any such thing as the "new anti-Semitism." All of the above is accompanied by an international resurgence of violence against Jews and their synagogues and schools, particularly in Europe. It is found in conjunction with anti-Americanism (because Jews are believed either to control or be too influential with the American government), anti-Zionism, and the anti-globalization movement.

All the authoritative sources who have written about the phenomenon agree that these are the key components, so when we find them, we can offer them as examples, so long as someone has discussed them in terms of anti-Semitism or attacks on Jews. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

My worry is that Livingstone has not been (at least in the sources provided) accused of anti-semitism, and that most of the discussion of Galloway has nothing to do with the allegation of anti-semitism against his supporters. Add to that that we appear to be accusing them of anti-semitism (not reporting others allegations), which is OR (and unwise in the case of Galloway). The NUS thing is a bit ephemeral but has been discussed in terms of new anti-semitism so I'd just want to tidy that up. --Coroebus 18:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Livingstone has very definitely been accused of anti-Semitism (got into quite a bit of trouble recently over it), as has Galloway, and without question his supporters. The section talks about it in relation to that election. By all means go ahead and clean it up as you see fit, and we can talk later if there are any disagreements. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Slim, whose definition is this? CJCurrie 11:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

All the sources put together. The above are the issues they agree on. It was posted weeks ago. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you mean "all the sources from one side of the argument put together". It's been a while since we discussed this, so could you remind me as to which sources you consider authoritative? CJCurrie 23:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, you'll have to look in the archives; they're either there or in the article. By "all the sources," I mean all the sources who study new anti-Semitism. The above are the elements they appear to agree on. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm asking you which sources you consider to be authoritative. Please respond. CJCurrie 01:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Cotler

This doesn't seem to belong in the section it was in, and I'm not sure where else to put it, so I'm moving it here in the meantime. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

In his article "Human Rights and the New Anti-Jewishness", Irwin Cotler, at the time Canada's Minister of Justice, wrote that "classical or traditional anti-Semitism is the discrimination against, or denial of, the right of Jews to live as equal members of a free society; the new anti-Semitism — incompletely, or incorrectly, [referred to] as "anti-Zionism"... — involves the discrimination against, denial of, or assault upon the right of the Jewish people to live as an equal member of the family of nations. What is intrinsic to each form of anti-Semitism — and common to both — is discrimination. All that has happened is that it has moved from discrimination against Jews as individuals — a classical anti-Semitism for which there are indices of measurement (e.g., discrimination against Jews in education, housing, or employment) — to discrimination against Jews as people — a new anti-Semitism — for which one has yet to develop indices of measurement.

Cotler identifies distinct categories to illustrate the scope, character and specific instances of the new anti-Semitism. He describes them as Genocidal, Political, Theological, Cultural, Anti-Israel, Economic and State-sanctioned. Broadly, he asserts that anti-Semitism has expanded from the hatred of Jews to include hatred of Jewish national aspirations, the hatred of Israel's status as a sovereign nation, and the denial of its right to an equal role in the global community of nations. Cotler identifies distinct indices by which this prejudice may be manifested, ranging from the state-sanctioned theological anti-Semitism of some Islamic governments to the Cultural anti-Semitism which he perceives in the European elite. He also stressed that such prejudice may be overtly manifested (in the case of anti-Semitic rhetoric) or subtly manifested through diplomatic pressure, or by the economic boycott of Israeli businesses and their trade partners.

Jenin

What does the paragraph below have to do with new anti-Semitism? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It may be noted that the Israeli media also engaged in speculation of a massacre at Jenin. On 9 April 2002, Ha'aretz printed an article which asserted that Shimon Peres was privately describing the battle as a "massacre". IDF officers were also cited as having expressed "grave reservations" about the battle, and one officer was quoted as saying, "However many wanted men we kill in the refugee camp, and however much of the terror infrastructure we expose and destroy there, there is still no justification for causing such great destruction."

It doesn't; rather, it's a classic example of original research. No-one (except a Wikipedia editor) has brought this up in the context of New anti-Semitism; thus, this inclusion "introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source." In this case, the editor wishes to refute the common claim that the "Jenin massacre" allegations are an example of New anti-Semitism, so he brings one example of various senior Israelis making the same claim. Unfortunately, he forgets that he must actually quote someone who says "Jenin massacre allegations weren't really an example of New anti-Semitism, because Peres also privately called the battle a massacre". Jayjg ^(talk) 18:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Right-wing anti-Semitism

Organisations: Al-Qaeda, America's Nazi Party, Aryan Nations, British National Front, British National Party, Combat 18, Democracia Nacional, Fiamma Tricolore, Forza Nuova, Front National, Heritage Front, Hizb ut-Tahrir, Hrisi Avgi, Institute for Historical Review, Jew Watch, Jihad Group, Ku Klux Klan, Patriotic Youth League, Nacionalni stroj, National Alliance, National Democratic Party of Germany, Nationalist Movement Party, National Socialist Front, Nieuw Rechts, Russian National Unity, Stormfront, Sweden Democrats, The Saviour Sect, Vanguard News Network, Vlaams Belang, White Aryan Resistance, and many more. Individuals: Alex Linder, Arthur Butz, David Duke, David Irving, Don Black, Jean-Marie Le Pen, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Imad Mugniyah, Kevin Alfred Strom, Osama bin Laden, Pat Buchanan, Richard Verrall, Shaun Walker, Tom Metzger, Willis Carto, and many more.

These are some examples of organisations and individuals that I consider anti-Semitic. They are all right-wing. This new supposedly changed paradigm in anti-Semitic beliefs and expressions is confusing - does it mean that the rightwing organisations/people I consider to be anti-Semitic aren't really responsible for the international resurgence of anti-Judaism? Does it mean that their anti-Semitism is - in any way - less significant than this left-wing anti-Semitism? Which left-wing groups have done what anti-Semitic acts exactly? The article doesn't say and I would really like to find out. In what way is the "Muslim Student Association at San Francisco State University" (one of few specific incidents) associated with left-wing politics? Shouldn't the introduction of this article make a sharp distinction between this phrase and real anti-Semitism so that people don't start thinking that the British National Party or Jean-Marie Le Pen couldn't be anti-Semites, since they're not leftwing and all. Article20 05:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem at the moment is that the article doesn't sufficiently distinguish between left-wing anti-Semitism (which is what I take the new anti-semitism to mean) and the recent increase in anti-semitic incidents which are attributable both to the new anti-semitism, muslim youths (re:Palestine), and right-wingers (old fashioned classic anti-semitism). --Coroebus 08:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Good points, and we do need to write a careful and well-referenced section about this. The sources say that the new anti-Semitism stems from the left and their radical anti-Zionism, anti-Americanism, and anti-globalization. However, Islamist anti-Semitism feeds into that (is that right-wing or left-wing?), and classic right-wing anti-Semitism uses it as (in my words) a Trojan horse, because suddenly anti-Semitism is, as it were, fashionable again, so they're able to feed into that.

These are new political alignments, and to some extent all the old paradigms are falling away. It's something that many on the left (center and radical) in Europe, and those who have been active in anti-racism, are dismayed about and are trying to distance themselves from. Because it's a new alignment, it's necessarily confusing, and we won't find clear-cut answers anywhere. What we should perhaps do is try to write a carefully sourced section that honestly reflects that confusion. I can try to start it (though it won't be for a few days), and then the rest of you can check it against your sources and add your own material to it, if you like. Or if anyone else has ideas on how to get it started, go right ahead. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Article20, I meant to add: it would be good if we could leave the intro as it is, and try to develop these ideas in the body of the text, because the intro has just been decided on as a compromise text after mediation. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

"These are new political alignments, and to some extent all the old paradigms are falling away." So are you saying that Revisionist Zionists may have entered into an alliance with neonazi/neofascist groups to counteract an alliance between the left and the Muslim world? As for the different intros that has been decided on, I prefer this one. "Because it's a new alignment, it's necessarily confusing". On the "positive" side; if specific groups/individuals (other than Red Ken) aren't identified, it is possible to have the accusation of anti-Semitism loom over anyone you disagree with politically. Which will eventually (and unfortunately) render the term anti-Semitism meaningless as it, depending on perspective, might be applied to just about anyone and everyone. Which in turn might be seen as a motive for certain right-wing elements. Article20 22:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you're saying here. Anti-Semitism from the right-wing has been around for over a century; anti-Semitism from the left is comparatively new. New anti-Semitism. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

(outdenting) So are you saying that this New anti-Semitism has replaced plain old anti-Semitism "as all the old paradigms are falling away"? Does it mean that the rightwing organisations/individuals I consider to be anti-Semitic (see above) aren't responsible for the new international resurgence of anti-Judaism? Or are you saying that those organisations/individuals aren't really anti-Semitic, as "old" anti-Semitism apparently is an outdated concept? I've listed just a few of the right-wing groups that I consider anti-Semitic, if anti-Semitism from the left is so significant in the world today that the very definition of anti-Semitism should be changed, at least you could do is provide a similar list of left-wing groups you consider anti-Semitic. If you put Ken Livingstone in the same league as Jean-Marie Le Pen or Alex Linder, or if you put National Union of Students in the same league as Ku Klux Klan or Combat 18 the accusation of anti-Semitism will become meaningless. You do understand that, don't you? Article20 01:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not clear what your point is. One of the features that makes New anti-Semitism "New" is that it comes from the left. That's what all the literature says. I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to debate, or, for that matter, why you refuse to use your actual userid. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Is it anti-Semitism that comes from the left or anti-Semitism that comes from the right that is responsible for the 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? Article20 03:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Has the concept of New anti-Semitism replaced (the traditional notion of) anti-Semitism, or do two different concepts of anti-Semitism exist simultaneously? If so, which concept more accurately describes anti-Semitic beliefs and expressions? Article20 04:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Why are you asking here, rather than reading the sources and reporting what they have to say on it? Jayjg ^(talk) 14:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Article 20: I'm going to address this point shortly, via a compromise wording which I hope will be acceptable to most parties. CJCurrie 01:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Suggested addition

[Please note that I've moved this discussion elsewhere. Do not respond under this header.] CJCurrie 06:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I propose that the following sentence be added to the introduction:

"The term "New anti-Semitism" refers to a specific concept of anti-Semitic activity, and should not be confused with the more general phenomenon of contemporary anti-Semitism (although proponents of the term argue that it is a part of the same)."

Reasons:

• "New anti-Semitism" is easily confused with "contemporary anti-Semitism", even though the terms refer to very different things. As a recent EU study notes, contemporary anti-Semitism emanates from different sources, ranging from radical left to radical right to radical Islam. Quite obviously, the phenomenon is not equivalent with the concept of "NAS". For the benefit of readers who are unfamiliar with these debates, we should distinguish the terms.
• Until March of this year, the "NAS" article distinguished between the general and specific meanings of the term. Leaving aside the question of why this clarification was removed, there is no reason why it cannot be restored now.

I have made an effort to express my point in neutral language, and it is my hope that we can achieve concensus on the matter without unnecessary bickering. Constructive adjustments and style corrections are welcome. CJCurrie 04:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• I support this. Just a thought, would it be better if "concept of anti-Semitic activity" was replaced with "concept that describes anti-Semitic activity"? Also, Contemporary anti-Semitism should have it's own article, right now it's a redirect to this one (or better, create Anti-Semitism in the 21st century and redirect Contemporary anti-Semitism to that article). Article20 05:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I object to this. CJC, you were part of the mediation and agreed to stick to it. The intro was agreed upon. Secondly, the writing makes no sense. What does "specific concept of anti-Semitic activity" mean? What is a "concept of activity"? What is the "more general phenomenon of contemporary anti-Semitism?" What is "contemporary anti-Semitism"? Who says that whatever you're referring to is a "more general phenomenon"? Please help to build up the body of the article, rather than trying to re-open the issue of the intro so soon after the agreed version was inserted. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

(i) Yes, I was part of the mediation and I accepted Mel's wording on a provisional basis. There was never a requirement that the wording be cast in stone, nor the further additions would not be permitted. Please don't pretend that there was.

(ii) Contemporary anti-Semitism is, as the term implies, anti-Semitism that is contemporary (irrespective of the political ideology it emanates from).

(iii) A specific concept of anti-Semitic activity is, as the term implies, a concept of anti-Semitic activity that is specific to certain phenomena (ie. ideology, place on the political spectrum, etc).

(iv) I have been trying to build up the main body of the article. This doesn't mean that I am not also at liberty to suggest further revisions to the introduction. CJCurrie 05:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

CJCurrie, you agree to stand by Mel's suggestions, unless they involved a policy violation. Don't make me go through the archives and e-mails to find where you agreed that, because you know you did. Further additions can't be permitted by people who were involved in the mediation just days after the new intro is inserted. And it's not just an addition. It's one that fundamentally alters the tone of the intro, not to mention that the writing makes no sense.

Do you have a source that says contemporary anti-Semitism is something other than new anti-Semitism? My sources use them interchangeably.

Please start reporting what the sources say about new anti-Semitism. Please don't do anything else. Our personal opinions are completely irrelevant. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

CJCurrie, you agree to stand by Mel's suggestions, unless they involved a policy violation. Don't make me go through the archives and e-mails to find where you agreed that, because you know you did.

Actually, I specifically argued that further adjustments might be in order for the introduction. Mel didn't object to my comments in principle, and it never occurred to me that further debate on the subject would be considered "unacceptable". (For what it's worth, I planned to run the proposed changes by Mel before adding them to the article.)

Do you have a source that says contemporary anti-Semitism is something other than new anti-Semitism? My sources use them interchangeably.

This is the first time you've said so. Could you please provide an example?

In response to your question, I would refer you to the Manifestations of Antisemitism in the EU 2002-2003: Executive Summary (PDF file), which describes contemporary anti-Semitism in Europe as emanating from several diverse sources. CJCurrie 06:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not the first time I've said so, and I've already provided a source. I can look for one again, but I can't do it right now. You know, you could simply have asked me for a source, rather than starting with "can you explain this," and ominously pointing to a link, as though I'd been caught smoking behind the bike sheds and was about to be spanked by the headmaster. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem, Slim, is that it is not NPOV to argue that "NAS" and "Contemporary anti-Semitism" are one and the same. Your decision to create the redirect page seems to me both arbitrary and unjustified, particularly when there was a serious discussion taking place on the issue elsewhere. (And my tone was not intended to be accusatory so much as disappointed, though this may not have been conveyed properly).

By the way, could you please comment on the EU study? CJCurrie 06:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

What is your question about the EU study? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you not agree that it identifies contemporary anti-Semitism in Europe as emanating from several diverse sources (ie. radical left, radical right, radical Islam)? CJCurrie 07:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

A request

I'm asking everyone to edit this article in good faith. We have been through months of turmoil since CJCurrie arrived and then requested assisted from HOTR. Since then (with blame on all sides), we've had horrible revert wars, serious personal attacks, protracted mediation, a page protected for two months, and at the end of it, we still have an article that badly needs improving, in terms of the writing, the flow, and the sources. With the help of the mediator, we agreed on an intro, which was inserted a couple of days ago, and already CJCurrie is trying to change it. That is unacceptable, and is not a sign of good faith.

The ADL is not an organization that only "has as its stated aim" that it fights anti-Semitism. It does fight it, and to suggest otherwise is very silly. How the Israelis responded to the allegations about Jenin is irrelevant to the new anti-Semitism. It is that Israel was so easily accused of a "massacre" by journalists who did not check any of the claims that some sources have suggested was a manifestation of NAS. We say that; we name the sources; and we move on. If other sources have specifically addressed the point, we quote them. But we don't add a long paragraph about Israel's response to Jenin, because it's not relevant. If you want to add it somewhere, go to Battle of Jenin 2002.

Leflyman, I reverted your citation request, because this is an agreed intro, and because there are lots of sources out there who say it, so that some sources have said it is not a contentious point. CJCurrie, it would have been almost as fast for you to add a footnote than to delete the request, because you're familiar with who has made this claim.

Anyone who is here to bash Israel, please find somewhere else to do it, preferably another website. We are trying to write an article, as the intro says, on "the concept of an international resurgence of anti-Jewish incidents and attacks on Jewish symbols, as well as the acceptance of anti-Semitic beliefs and their expression in public discourse which is held to be associated with certain left-wing political views." That is what the article is about; nothing else, and we are not here to argue the issue, but simply to write what other people have said about it.

We should be able to do this without ending up hating each other. I am requesting, please, a sincere show of good faith from everyone. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Responses:

(i) In the first place, the current wording for the introduction was never intended to be a permament fix, immune from any and all attempts at revision. I cannot speak for Mel, but I'd be quite surprised if he intended for his recommendation to be cast in stone.

(ii) Readers will observe that I did not unilaterally adjust the introductory wording: I made a suggestion, and solicited comment. While I was prepared for the possibility of that SV would oppose my suggestion, I did not anticipate that she would interpret it as a display of bad faith. I cannot for the life of me understand how trying to build consensus for a possible change in wording is "unacceptable".

(iii) Following criticism from Jay and Slim, I added further sourced information indicating that Ha'aretz's coverage of the Battle of Jenin was part of the international debate concerning "New anti-Semitism". This change was arbitrarily reverted. Why?

(iv) My comments about Earl Raab and Steven Zipperstein were also arbitrarily removed, without so much as an explanation. Why?

(v) Good faith is a two-way street, Slim. If you want the discussion to function properly this time, you should not arbitrarily revert good-faith contributions, castigate attempts to build consensus for change, or interpret changes that you oppose as "attempts to bash Israel". I'm quite prepared to work constructively with other contributors, but I won't be able to do it alone. CJCurrie 05:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The agreed intro was intended to be a fix for longer than two days. Just please leave it alone. Once we have an article full of brilliant prose and good source material, then we can return to the intro if necessary.

There was no consensus for change on the talk page. You made a suggestion; there were objections. You shouldn't then repeatedly add the same material.

Your comment about Raab etc were removed as part of the revert. I have restored them, but be aware that if you add bad material, good material might be inadvertently removed too. We all risk that.

I am asking you most sincerely to try to edit in a collaborative manner, to stop the talk-page arguments and allegations, and do not keep reinserting material that people object to. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

With respect, Slim, I cannot see how it violates either Wikipedia policy or common courtesy to engage in a free and open discussion about the introduction. I do not see any need to apologize for raising the issue, and I will not refrain from further discussions on the subject in the future. I do not intend to make any adjustments to the introduction without a full discussion on the talk page and consultation with the mediator; beyond that, I am under no obligation to remain silent on matters of concern. CJCurrie

You agreed to the current intro. Have the integrity to stick to your agreement. I accept that this doesn't mean it's cast in stone for the next 20 years, but it has to be able to last longer than two days! For the record, I will not be responding to anything else you say about the intro, and my silence will mean that I disagree with you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

(i) Yes, and that's why I didn't try to change the wording myself.

(ii) Since you've already disagreed, this doesn't come as a tremendous surprise. CJCurrie 06:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

After the article being locked for nearly 3 months, and finally coming to an agreement (via a mediator) regarding a new introduction, it's not to much to ask that people leave the intro alone for more than 2 days. In fact, it's not too much to ask that people leave it alone for a couple of months. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, Jay, your opposition to my proposed change is misguided. Mel's introduction was not presented in the form of an official ruling: it was a suggestion for the participants in the debate to consider. Our mediator never required that it be included in the article.

I may be mistaken, but I do not believe that proposing changes to a non-binding suggestion should be considered as inappropriate. CJCurrie 00:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Jenin addition

On another matter:

There was no consensus for change on the talk page. You made a suggestion; there were objections. You shouldn't then repeatedly add the same material.

I assume this is about the Ha'aretz article controversy. To this end, I would direct your attention to the second article that I've quoted in the passage, Sharon Sadeh's "How Jenin battle became a 'massacre'".

Sadeh's article is written specifically about foreign coverage of the Battle of Jenin, and it is written from a strongly critical standpoint. Please consider the following excerpts:

Despite flimsy evidence British papers jumped the gun to apportion blame when a West Bank refugee camp was attacked, says Sharon Sadeh. As a result, the reputation of the press has been damaged.

The Independent, the Guardian and the Times, in particular, were quick to denounce Israel and made sensational accusations based on thin evidence, fitting a widely held stereotype of a defiant, brutal and don't-give-a-damn Israel.

Consider, for instance, the following reports, which appeared on April 16. Under the headline "Amid the ruins, the grisly evidence of a war crime", the Independent's Phil Reeves wrote: "A monstrous war crime that Israel has tried to cover up for a fortnight has finally been exposed." Reeves, like his Times and Telegraph colleagues, all quote the same lone individual, Kamal Anis, who said that he "saw the Israeli soldiers pile 30 bodies beneath a half-wrecked house. When the pile was complete, they bulldozed the building, bringing its ruins down on the corpses. Then they flattened the area with a tank." The verdict of Times correspondent, Janine di Giovanni, was no less harsh: "Rarely in more than a decade of war reporting ... have I seen such deliberate destruction, such disrespect for human life." This was followed by an emotive leader in the Guardian, on April 17, which compared the effects of the Israeli operation in Jenin to September 11.

I'm sure you get the picture. There is no question that Sadeh's article is relevant to an article on "NAS" (she doesn't use the specific term, but we've already established that this isn't requisite for inclusion).

The article also includes this observation:

In fairness, Israel's own blunders have contributed to the initial damning impression of events in Jenin. Statements by the foreign minister, Shimon Peres, that the Palestinians might present the Jenin battle as a massacre, and that of the IDF spokesmen, to the effect that "hundreds" of Palestinians were killed - both statements were later hastily retracted - fuelled confusion and suspicion. These errors were compounded by blocking journalists and aid agencies from entering the camp, which led to another charge, also widely reported, of an alleged cover-up by the Israeli forces.

But does all this justify the overall line and tone of coverage? Pictures of the devastation in Jenin commanded substantial space and were accompanied by emotional descriptions taken from survivors, without a serious attempt to cross-examine their claims, and often without even recording the Israeli version of events (which was meticulously documented throughout the operation).

Sadeh's article, if articled in a clear and fair manner, provides a useful supplement to the international press's coverage of Jenin. Why are you so opposed to its inclusion? CJCurrie 06:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Because it has nothing to do with new anti-Semitism. The author doesn't mention it, not even indirectly. And if Israel did contribute to the Jenin misunderstanding, so what? The author writes that that was only one factor. There were other factors, as other authors say.

Ever since you arrived on this page, you have offered us your personal opinions about Israel and anti-Semitism over and over, either directly or by looking around for articles that you agree with politically, and it has led to chaos and a lot of wasted time and energy. We are not here to exchange personal views or add them to the article. We are here only to repeat what writers have said about new anti-Semitism (or the contemporary resurgence, or lack thereof, depending on POV). They don't have to use those exact words, but they do have to be clearly and unambiguously on-topic. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I've already made my points on this matter. Rather than responding to you directly, I'm going to ask that someone else provide an outside opinion. CJCurrie 06:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Did you not see the #Jenin section above? Jayjg ^(talk) 14:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Jenin again

CJCurrie, this has nothing to do with the new anti-Semitism. You are reporting on one of the ways in which claims of a massacre built up (but by no means the only one). To add it is original research, and not even good original research, because there were journalists reporting there was a massacre who were holed up in the camp and who were not reading Haaretz.

However, that's beside the point. The point is that you must find a source that says: "These allegations were not a manifestation of new anti-Semitism (or anti-Semitism), because Shimon Peres was using the same vocabulary." Find a source who says that, and you can add what s/he says, sticking closely to exactly what s/he says. Otherwise, please do not add it again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

"The Israeli media also engaged in speculation of a massacre at Jenin. On 9 April 2002, Ha'aretz printed an article which asserted that Shimon Peres was privately describing the battle as a "massacre". IDF officers were also cited as having expressed "grave reservations" about the battle, and one officer was quoted as saying, "However many wanted men we kill in the refugee camp, and however much of the terror infrastructure we expose and destroy there, there is still no justification for causing such great destruction." (Aluf Benn and Amos Harel, "Peres calls IDF operation in Jenin a 'massacre'", Ha'aretz, 9 April 2002.) These statements were later retracted. Sharon Sadeh, who has argued that the international press was responsible for demonizing Israel in its depiction of the battle, acknowledges that this article "contributed to the initial damning impression of events in Jenin". Sadeh has also argued that Israel's decision to block journalists from the camp was a strategic error, which led to accusations of a cover-up. (Sharon Sadeh, "How Jenin battle became a 'massacre'", The Guardian, 6 May 2002, p. 7.)"

See above. CJCurrie 06:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

About good faith

Slim, would you please explain this? CJCurrie 05:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

What kind of explanation do you want? Contemporary anti-Semitism is new anti-Semitism, as opposed to the old right-wing anti-Semitism that has been going on for a much longer time, so I created a redirect.

CJC, I'm very serious about this. If these problems (snide remarks, constant reverting, insertion of material designed to attack Israel), continues, I will take this case to the Arbcom, and we can all face the music together. I'm sick of it. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not to act out the situation we're writing about, and definitely not to use this article as a platform to attack Israel, or Jews, or the Israeli government, or anything that government has done. SlimVirgin ^(talk)

I've responded to your specific concerns in different areas elsewhere on this page. For the moment, I'll simply add that that I'm currently making a genuine effort to remain civil despite strong temptations in other directions. CJCurrie 06:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I thank you for that effort. I am making the same effort. But could we please stop arguing (even in a civil way)? It is getting us nowhere and probably making both of us angry. Please let us simply stick to finding sources who talk about this topic directly, and reporting what they say with no embellishments. And on the talk page, we should only discuss those sources and what they say; nothing else. SlimVirgin ^(talk)

Restraint, Slim, is also a two-way street. CJCurrie 06:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: A request (from SV)

I would say that anyone who is here to bash the Jewish people should go elsewhere. Also, note that the article should be about "New anti-Semitism", not what the current intro says. As it is now; we have an article that doesn't distinguish between left-wing anti-Semitism and the recent increase in (contemporary) anti-Semitic incidents which are attributable to (mostly) far-right groups and Muslim fundamentalists. I sincerely mean (no games, no nothing) that this is a serious problem. Furthermore, the title is offensive (one reason is that it relegates anti-Semitism to old anti-Semitism, or classic anti-Semitism) and inaccurate (see comments above) so I suggest it should be changed to Allegations of New anti-Semitism or New anti-Semitism (term). I'll try to show good faith and I'll hope that everyone else will do the same. Article20 06:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that anyone who is here to bash Jewish people should go elsewhere (preferrably to hell). I'm not convinced that anyone in the current discussion has actually done this, mind you ... CJCurrie 06:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has done that either, just thought SlimVirgins's advice to potential Israel bashers was too narrow in scope. And I like to bash anti-Semites, whether it's called for or not. Also, even though this article is about this new anti-Semitism, it should at least explore how recent right-wing anti-Semitic incidents impacts the "New anti-Semitism notion" that recent incidents are attributable to the left. Article20 07:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who is here to bash Israel or any Israeli governments (or indeed, to bash anti-Semites) needs to join the others in hell. We are here only to write an article sans bashing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who bashes any Israeli governments needs to join the others in hell? Good lord! By this logic, about half the Knesset would be consigned to the eternal flames. CJCurrie 06:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Ah wait, you wrote "anyone who is here" for said purpose ... never mind. CJCurrie 06:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

We're not here to bash anyone CJCurrie; we're just supposed to be writing an article about the phenomenon of New anti-Semitism. That means using sources which discuss New anti-Semitism, not engaging in political debates on Talk: pages, or using whatever sources we can find to try to create original research arguments which attempt to refute the fact that it exists. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem, of course, is that there are many authors who reject the term "New anti-Semitism", considering it to be a political slur against opponents of Israel or Israeli policy. "The fact that it exists" is not accepted by authors such as Norman G. Finkelstein and Tariq Ali; for that matter, the 2002-03 EU report did not come to a conclusion on its existence or lack thereof.

I suspect, however, that these objections will fall on deaf ears, as they have so many times before. A few contributors to this discussion are convinced that "New anti-Semitism" (and specifically their interpretation of the same) is THE TRUTH, and will not countenance any arguments to the contrary or even the suggestion that a debate exists. I can't see any hope of a consensus emerging until all sides are willing to admit that there's more than one side to the story. CJCurrie 00:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Suggested addition (again)

[The discussion under the previous subheader has become somewhat muddled; I'm moving the discussion here]

I propose that the following sentence be added to the introduction:

"The term "New anti-Semitism" refers to a specific concept of anti-Semitic activity, and should not be confused with the more general phenomenon of contemporary anti-Semitism (although proponents of the term argue that it is a part of the same)."

Reasons:

• "New anti-Semitism" is easily confused with "contemporary anti-Semitism", even though the terms refer to very different things. As a recent EU study notes, contemporary anti-Semitism emanates from different sources, ranging from radical left to radical right to radical Islam. Quite obviously, the phenomenon is not equivalent with the concept of "NAS". For the benefit of readers who are unfamiliar with these debates, we should distinguish the terms.
• Until March of this year, the "NAS" article distinguished between the general and specific meanings of the term. Leaving aside the question of why this clarification was removed, there is no reason why it cannot be restored now.

I have made an effort to express my point in neutral language, and it is my hope that we can achieve concensus on the matter without unnecessary bickering. Constructive adjustments and style corrections are welcome. CJCurrie 04:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It's both original research, and un-encyclopedic. Please don't give readers of Wikipedia articles advice on what they should or shouldn't do in the article itself. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Jay, it's an attempt to restore a vital clarification that was arbitrarily removed from the article in March 2006. CJCurrie 00:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

SV question

Could you address the questions I asked about this above? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe that I did. Could you comment on the EU study? CJCurrie 06:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Please don't start this again!!! You didn't, so please do it. The writing makes no sense to me, and I asked specific questions about what it means. Please answer them rather than just reposting your point in a different section! This is very, very discouraging. It was exactly this behavior that led to all the trouble. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by your response, because genuinely thought that I did address your points. For my part, your insistence that "New anti-Semitism" and "contemporary anti-Semitism" are indistinguishable makes no sense to me. Would you not agree that there is a general phenomenon of "anti-Semitism" in the world today? Would you not agree that this phenomenon emanates from diverse sources?

Although we disagree on the viability of the term "New anti-Semitism", both of us are familiar with the concept and know what it designates (or purports to designate). Do seriously you think that this concept encompasses the whole of contemporary anti-Semitism? CJCurrie 07:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Part of New anti-Semitism is the acceptance of resurgent anti-Semitism; from the 1950s to the 1990s anti-Semitism was seen as a pariah, but it has become more acceptable again, though it often needs to be packaged and marketed in unique or more subtle ways. As an example, one could take an old anti-Semitic text, and freshen it up and make it marketable again by replacing all occurrences of the word "Jew" with the word "Zionist". Jayjg ^(talk) 14:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem with this interpretation is that the same argument was made in 1974 and 1982, in successive books published by the ADL (meaning that if the '50s to '90s argument is true now, then the ADL's 1974 book was wrong.) Norman Finkelstein has addressed this in Beyond Chutzpah, articulating the view that the claim of "New anti-Semitism" is repeatedly trotted out whenever Israel's international reputation is in jeopardy.

And, to respond to the predictable objection, of course Finkelstein isn't arguing that anti-Semitism doesn't exist in the modern world. He's simply promoting the view that NAS-proponents have lost sight of the real issue, and are rushing to defend Israel with a too-casual and too-frequent cry of anti-Semitism. CJCurrie 00:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

New or contemporary anti-Semitism

I wasn't party to the original consensus intro so I don't want to start a fight, but since there is a disussion about this, I would have to agree with CJCurrie that my understanding of New anti-semitism is that it emanates from the left, while much of the contemporary resurgence of anti-semitism originates from the right, or from muslims. Now I'm sure there are arguments to be made that an atmosphere of left wing endorsement of anti-semitism might potentiate other forms of anti-semitism, I have not heard it said that all contemporary anti-semitism is new anti-semitism. Therefore I would certainly need to see sources asserting this before I would accept it. I'm not going to edit the intro because this seems to be very contentious, but I'm just making my views known. --Coroebus 07:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The sources on New anti-Semitism include a resurgent and Muslim originated anti-Semitism as part of the phenomenon. Have you read the sources on New anti-Semitism? Jayjg ^(talk) 14:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I've read the ones in this article, and I certainly didn't come across that claim. Then again, the sources in this article are quite poor quality. Can you point me towards any? --Coroebus 17:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

If you look at earlier versions of the intro, before the mediation, there were sources in there that were good, although I don't think they were online. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

If I get time I might try and track down some academic sources, if I find anything good I'll post it here. --Coroebus 23:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The "academic sources" that Slim and Jay speak of include works by Phyllis Chesler, David Rosenbaum, Alan Dershowitz, and others. They represent only one side of the argument, and none are unassailable. I recommend reading Norman G. Finkelstein's "Beyond Chutzpah", especially the first third of the book which deals specifically with the issue of "New anti-Semitism". CJCurrie 00:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Ha'aretz Jenin article

SlimVirgin has argued that the source materials cited in the following paragraph do not address "New anti-Semitism", and that the paragraph does not belong in the article. I believe that the Sadeh article is part of the larger debate over "New anti-Semitism", and that the paragraph should be included. What do other readers think?

The Israeli media also engaged in speculation of a massacre at Jenin. On 9 April 2002, Ha'aretz printed an article which asserted that Shimon Peres was privately describing the battle as a "massacre". IDF officers were also cited as having expressed "grave reservations" about the battle, and one officer was quoted as saying, "However many wanted men we kill in the refugee camp, and however much of the terror infrastructure we expose and destroy there, there is still no justification for causing such great destruction." These statements were later retracted. Sharon Sadeh, who has argued that the international press was responsible for demonizing Israel in its depiction of the battle, acknowledges that this article "contributed to the initial damning impression of events in Jenin". Sadeh has also argued that Israel's decision to block journalists from the camp was a strategic error, which led to accusations of a cover-up.

CJCurrie 07:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You are engaged in original research. Sources A, B, and C say: "An example of the new anti-Semitism was when the world's media assumed without evidence that there had been a massacre in Jenin." You then look for a source D that says: "Some members of the Israeli government also used the term 'massacre'." CJCurrie's conclusion: "It can't have been an example of new anti-Semitism if the Israeli govt was doing it too." YOUR conclusion. Read WP:NOR. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

They think that you are engaging in OR. In this particular case, you are trying to use internal Israel leadership's humanitarian concerns to whitewash modern blood libel. At this point you only prove that attacks on the Jewish state are unreasonable, vicious and actual. Now tell us you are doing this strictly for encyclopdic truth and clarity. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Your insinuations notwithstanding, HS, what I am suggesting that the Israeli media was a part of the international speculation about a possible massacre in Jenin. I'm also conveying Sadeh's argument that these reports were a contributing factor in international coverage of the same possibility. (For the record, I'd be quite willing to clarify Sadeh's belief that the international response was unjustified ... assuming that the "demonisation" reference doesn't already make the point clear enough, that is.)

Could I request that people without well-established track records on this discussion page comment on the matter? It really doesn't add anything to the discussion if only the usual suspects weigh in. CJCurrie 08:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You wrote: "what I am suggesting [sic] that the Israeli media was a part of the international speculation ..." EXACTLY!! What you are suggesting. WE DON'T WANT TO HEAR YOUR SUGGESTIONS!! How many times do you need to be told? Read the policy! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I've already explained the problem above, at #Jenin; did you not see that? I'll help out, by repeating it: This is a classic example of original research. No-one (except a Wikipedia editor) has brought this up in the context of New anti-Semitism; thus, this inclusion "introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source." In this case, the editor wishes to refute the common claim that the "Jenin massacre" allegations are an example of New anti-Semitism, so he brings one example of various senior Israelis making the same claim. Unfortunately, he forgets that he must actually quote someone who says "Jenin massacre allegations weren't really an example of New anti-Semitism, because Peres also privately called the battle a massacre". And if you don't want "the usual suspects" to comment on the matter, then what are you doing here? Are you proposing that you withdraw from the Talk: page? Jayjg ^(talk) 14:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you quote a source that claims the Jenin 'massacre' is an example of new anti-Semitism? --Coroebus 17:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Here you go:

• "The new nexus of antisemitism" (Melanie Phillips.The Spectator (British magazine), March 22 2003):

"And of course there was Jenin, the so-called ‘massacre’ or ‘genocide’ reported as such by virtually the entire media, where in fact 52 Palestinians died of whom more than half were terrorists while Israel sustained (for it) the huge loss of 23 of its soldiers. This astonishing media distortion was conceded at the conference by the (extraordinarily brave) Palestinian politics professor Mohammad Dajani, who also observed that a distraught Palestinian public was – on this and other occasions -- whipped up by biased and emotional Palestinian reporting which showed little concern for the truth. But the big lie of the Jenin massacre is now believed as fact, contributing to the belief that Israel is a criminal state."

That doesn't say anything about it being 'new anti-Semitism'.

• Um, before replying, perhaps it might help to actually read the article, which is titled "The new nexus of antisemitism", and points out:

"But an even more striking feature is that, while the old antisemitism still festers away among neo-Nazis, the new antisemitism is a phenomenon of their sworn enemies on the political left. So as the Canadian law professor Irwin Cotler observed, we now have the mind-twisting situation where anti-Jewish hatred is harnessed to the cause of anti-racism and human rights, with Israel being compared to both Nazism and apartheid by those who define themselves against these ideologies." (emphasis mine)

--Leflyman^Talk 18:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I presumed you'd posted the relevant parts. --Coroebus 18:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• My apologies; I assumed that when you asked for a source, that providing a link to an article and a quote about the "Jenin massacre" would be what you wanted. I take it that the source is now satisfactory to you? --Leflyman^Talk 21:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

No need for apologies, as I said below, I was playing devil's advocate, I'm aware this event has been associated with 'new' anti-semitism, but I noticed that the article didn't actually cite sources claiming directly that it was. --Coroebus 21:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• The massacring of the truth (Amnon Rubinstein, Ha'aretz, September 9, 2002):

" A new film by Mohammad Bakri, "Jenin, Jenin: A One-Sided Movie" portrays the IDF as an embodiment of evil and cruelty, and its soldiers as the butchers of helpless citizens in Jenin..."

"Why is this at all important? Because a propaganda war is being waged against Israel - including an electronic intifada - that has no counterpart in other conflicts. It does not simply entail criticizing Israel for its policies, or a government stand, or an attack on one issue or another. Rather, it is a propaganda offensive aimed at portraying Israel as a monstrous state - propaganda without restraints.

...

"And indeed, this propaganda - in which Israelis also participate - has all the signs of hysterical anti-Semitism. Not all criticism of Israel - as harsh as it may be - is anti-Semitic. But the new Arab and Palestinian propaganda shares common characteristics with the old hatred - obsessiveness and monstrousness."

--Leflyman^Talk 18:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Nor does that, although it does talk about a 'new Arab and Palestinian propaganda' which may, or may not, be intended to be the same as 'new anti-Semitism'. What I'm trying to point out here is that we have to be careful about insisting on exact wording, this whole article is in actuality rather poorly sourced, quite a lot of it is OR by any standard, but certainly by the standard of insisting on explicit reference to 'new anti-semitism'. On the particular question, I don't think we need to get into an argument about whether the Jenin massacre was or was not an example of new anti-Semitism, it is enough that it has been so described (although you haven't established that with sources), and people can refer to the relevant article if they want more details. --Coroebus 18:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's another example: http://www.phyllis-chesler.com/articles/sins-of-omission.htm. Chesler she discusses this at greater length in her book The New anti-Semitism. Here's another which actually reviews several sources on the New anti-Semitism, and here's another. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

For Slim and Jay:

(i) Under your definition and your terms, it is both acceptable and appropriate for this article to reference criticisms made by NAS-proponents against the international community's coverage of the 2002 Battle of Jenin.

(ii) Sharon Sadeh's article does, in fact, criticize the international community's coverage of Jenin. She doesn't actually use the term "NAS", but under your definition she doesn't need to -- she's clearly referring to the same perceived phenomenon.

(iii) Sadeh also argues that some government decisions and media reports within Israel were contributory factors toward this international response. She specifically cites the original Ha'aretz article to this end.

(iv) Sadeh also argues that these decisions and reports did not justify the tenor of the international reporting on the battle.

In other words, Sadeh has written an interesting and provocative piece arguing that Israel had a contributory causal (though not a moral) responsibility for the international community's distorted coverage of Jenin. It would appear to me that such an observation would be a useful addition to an article on "NAS", your accusation of "OR" notwithstanding.

Your insinuations notwithstanding, HS, what I am suggesting that the Israeli media was a part of the international speculation about a possible massacre in Jenin. I'm also conveying Sadeh's argument that these reports were a contributing factor in international coverage of the same possibility. (For the record, I'd be quite willing to clarify Sadeh's belief that the international response was unjustified ... assuming that the "demonisation" reference doesn't already make the point clear enough, that is.)

Could I request that people without well-established track records on this discussion page comment on the matter? It really doesn't add anything to the discussion if only the usual suspects weigh in. CJCurrie 08:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

::You wrote: "what I am suggesting [sic] that the Israeli media was a part of the international speculation ..." EXACTLY!! What you are suggesting. WE DON'T WANT TO HEAR YOUR SUGGESTIONS!! How many times do you need to be told? Read the policy! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think, Slim, that you may have missed my point. The role of the Israeli media in Jenin coverage would, I acknowledge, constitute "OR" if presented on its own ... but not when said information is coupled with analysis relating directly to the NAS debate. As it currently stands, it's necessary background information to Sadeh's article.

(And I can hear you fine -- you don't need to shout.) CJCurrie 00:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand OR. We've been trying to explain it for months, and what you're doing is a classic case of it. Your source says nothing at all about Jenin being, or not being, an example of new anti-Semitism. It is YOU who are making that connection. That is OR. It is not allowed.

Also, if you're going to assume that a deletion was an accident, then assume it. Don't write a snide edit summary. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Your source says nothing at all about Jenin being, or not being, an example of new anti-Semitism.

Have you read the entire article? CJCurrie 01:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I have, and it says nothing about New anti-Semitism, or any other kind of anti-Semitism. Have a look. You seem to assume that just because an author argues that "the international press vilified Israel based on false accusations of a massacre, and this is an example of New anti-Semitism", that means the whole "Jenin massacre" = New anti-Semitism concept is now in play, and that you can now bring arguments to refute it. But this is exactly what the WP:NOR policy forbids! It says something is "original research" if "it introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position." Sharon Sadeh is not making any arguments about whether or not "Jenin massacre" allegations are an example of New anti-Semitism, only you are. Find some reputable source which makes this argument, please. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Sadeh argues that the international community demonized Israel in its coverage of Jenin. Slim has mentioned elsewhere that accusations of "NAS" do not need to mention the term -- they simply have to deal with the same perceived phenomenon. My reading is that Sadeh's article does this, your accusation of OR notwithstanding. (Btw, your quote about "reputatable sources" seems strangely out of place in this discussion). CJCurrie 02:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

As Slim made clear, the articles in question are unambiguously about anti-Semitism; moreover, they invariably use the phrase "anti-Semitism". However, Sadeh neither states nor implies that this demonization of Israel was an example of anti-Semitism. Indeed, if you insist that any article claiming that Israel is treated unfairly by the international community is an article about New anti-Semitism, then you yourself are arguing that anti-Israelism is a type of anti-Semitism. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Jay, in light of of Slim's recent edits, I'm going to drop this matter at least for the time being. CJCurrie 03:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Also, if you're going to assume that a deletion was an accident, then assume it. Don't write a snide edit summary.

I didn't think my summary was especially snide, and I thought it best to let you know that I didn't consider the deleted point to be contentious. CJCurrie 01:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Citation claim that "new anti-Semitism" used to silence debate

I have reviewed Brian Klug's article in The Nation, which is used as the source for the claim that "critics of the concept argue...that it is sometimes used to silence debate." Nowhere in his piece is such an argument made, which is similarly repeated in the summary of his views. The main thrust of his article is that in his opinion, the idea of "new" anti-Semitism is merely a construction of the "old" anti-Semitism, with the inclusion of the notion of anti-Zionism being anti-Semitic. I further cannot find a reference in his editorial to the following claim, likewise presented in the summary: "He suggests that line between legitimate and anti-Semitic criticism of Israel is being drawn by many supporters of Israel in such a way as to rule out any criticism beyond a rap across the Israeli government's knuckles or a finger wagging at the laws of its land." I should note that having read Klug's article, I am confused as to whether the "criticism" section is based exclusively on this work, or some of his other writings. For example, I have come across a paper by Klug on his site, Jewish Forum for Justice and Human Rights, which includes a related, but certainly different claim:

Second, there is another kind of overstatement, one that comes, as it were, from the opposite camp. Partisans of the Palestinians sometimes accuse partisans of Israel of using the word ‘antisemite’ as a deliberate tactic to shut them down. There is some truth in this claim; I myself have made the point. But it is far from being the whole truth. It treats the charge of antisemitism as if it were always a cynical ploy. This countercharge, however, is itself too cynical. When I speak of a mindset I am implying that many Jews believe, spontaneously and sincerely, that if you scratch an anti-Zionist you find an antisemite. Furthermore, sometimes it’s true.

As is clear, Klug is not contending that the usage of "new anti-Semitism" (which is what this Wikipedia article is about, after all) is to "silence debate", but usage of the general term "anti-Semite" is claimed by certain people (such as pro-Palestinians) to be misapplied by supporters of Israel and Jews. Guess what, not such a unique idea. Any perceived negative label can be misapplied, with an intent to malign or impugn: be it "fascist" or "communist", "racist" or "hippie". (See, for instance, Godwin's Law). In short, the statement "it is sometimes used to silence debate" does not have much relevance as to whether there is or isn't a contemporary phenomenon of "new anti-Semitism."--Leflyman^Talk 08:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Good research. I'm certain, however, that Norman Finkelstein does make this claim (ie. that the argument of "NAS" is sometimes used to silence debate). I'll get back to you concerning a source. To your latter point: this claim may not disprove the concept, but it does address a perceived misuse of the same. CJCurrie 08:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• My feeling is Finkelstein is not a reliable source as a sole basis of criticism, in that he argues controversies for the sake of being controversial-- not just in my view, but in the view of his colleagues. See for example, 'Shoah Biz' Critic Claims His Views Cost Him Prof Job:

In a March 2000 peer review of Mr. Finkelstein's course on 20th-century political thought, John R. Wallach, an expert on early modern political thought, wrote that he found Mr. Finkelstein's lecture on Adolph Hitler's "Mein Kampf" "disturbing."

"Professor Finkelstein was able to argue that Hitler was a 'creation of Western thought.' That is, he claimed that Hitler's ideas — apart from his virulent anti-Semitism — were no different from commonly held ideas of Western moral and political philosophers (excepting John Stuart Mill)," Mr. Wallach wrote in a peer review that Mr. Finkelstein provided the Forward.

...

In November 2000, Andrew Polsky, a professor of American government at Hunter, accused Mr. Finkelstein of academic one-sidedness in a lecture on Machiavelli's "The Prince."

"What I witnessed, then, was a form of low-level intellectual bullying," Mr. Polsky wrote. He recommended that the department's personnel committee "revisit the decision of whether to retain his services as an adjunct faculty member in the future."

--Leflyman^Talk 17:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

We really oughtn't to get into debates about whether we like Finkelstein or not, if he has something relevant to say, we can quote it (cf Melanie Phillips above).

Despite Alan Dershowitz's best efforts to stop the presses, Finkelstein's book was published by a respectable firm. That's enough to qualify it for inclusion. CJCurrie 00:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

And Klug also says that anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism don't have to occur together, but when they do they are a new anti-Semitism. But different views come together in different ways all the time; and it hardly makes them 'phenomena' on their own unless its outlined that way. To me the concept of New anti-Semitism is more descriptive of a political categorization by one party than something with actual objective purpose. ie, spin. Thats why its funny to me that the article mentions that New anti-Semites assume all Jews are crypto-Zionists, while in most cases that this term applies to most people are assumed to be crypto-anti-Semitic. Well, whatever, if people think that its in the debate enough to make a Wikipedia article worthy. It just highlights one of my concerns though--not that Wikipedia is necessarily agenda driven--but is consumed by a political discourse where different entities are created all the time for political reasons. Wikipedia is literally polluted with 'meta-descriptive' articles compared to the amount of primary historical or descriptive articles. Brianshapiro

New Anti-Semitism has its "revenge" article

Because a left-wing administrator did not "like" the content of this article, a new "revenge article" was created. It started out as one tiny paragraph (listed below),

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_apartheid

Israeli apartheid is a controversial phrase used by some anti-Zionists and Palestinian rights activists to compare the policies of the Israeli government towards Palestinians to those of apartheid-era South Africa towards its Black population.

Now, the "revenge article" has ballooned out of all proportion. The tactic of this left-wing administrator is clear, he simply will not be stopped (unless people come together and stand up against him). Wikipedia is for everyone, it is not one persons personal soap box to spout their views of what "reality should be". 70.30.193.143 20:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I won't be standing up against him. If an article is worth keeping, even if it was created to make a point, I'm going to favour its preservation. This isn't (or shouldn't be) a place to fight the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. --Coroebus 21:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Labeling the article as revenge calls upon us to believe intangibles that we can't prove. And frankly it is unnecessary. The article is a bad article. Just because 1, 2, or 200 million people believe something to be true... doesnt mean it is. It just is a poor article. Greroja 16:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the new anti-semitism is a description applied to some people who hold that Israel is an apartheid state, so I thik it is unlikely that the postition could be "revenge" for the label. There certainly are anti-semites on the right and the left, but let's not lump everybody who holds a viewpoint into one category, or else we are guilty of the intolerance as well. --Aelffin 13:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem with a lot of people today is that they blend the meanings of one word into another. You can't equate disagreement (even based on logic) as intolerance.Greroja 16:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Someone complained that the intro wasn't sourced, so I added the citations that were lost when the compromise intro was put up.

I may try to start a section tonight discussing the complexities of what people are calling new anti-Semitism. I'd like to request that it not be reverted just because it's not immediately perfect, as it may take some time to get it right. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Slim: Since we've disagreed about so much on this page, I should give credit where it's due: I can tell that you're making an effort to be NPOV in your current edits, and I commend you for this.

To ensure that the section is truly NPOV in its final form, I would ask you to clarify that some contributors to the academic debate have disputed the viability of the term. Also, since the definition now apparently includes right-wing anti-Semites again, I wonder if further revisions to the introduction are in order. CJCurrie 01:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I've finished for tonight, but there's more to be done, so I hope people will bear with me. I want to go through the page for flow and reorganize it so that it's readable and has a logic to it rather than being a list of examples, and also so that the criticism is, wherever possible, incorporated into the narrative, rather than being stuck on the end. I also think some of the examples we give of attacks might count as OR, because it's not clear who's saying they are examples of new anti-Semitism, so they may have to go. I also have some books here that give a more nuanced view of what's going on, and it might be worth saying more about Yehuda Bauer's idea of a "fourth wave" of anti-Semitism. I'll be doing my best throughout to be NPOV, so if something appears not to be, it will likely be only because I haven't finished the writing.

The page is currently in a bit of a rough state because there's now some repetition, but I'll get it sorted out soon. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Also just to make clear, I'll hopefully be including more than Klug in the "old phenomenon" section. I need to go through the sources and pick out the best arguments, and will try to do that tomorrow. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I also took a look at the sources and this is what I've found 1. book source, unverifiable (look if it can be found on Google Books for instance) 2. personal homepage 3. newspaper article, good source 4. book source, unverifiable 5. lecture by Yehuda Bauer, good source, but only to his own views 6. non-web source, unverifiable 7. non-web source, unverifiable 8. good source 9. looks like an editorial 10. partisan site, but as it's only used to give source for their views it's OK 11. only used to give source for his views, so it's OK 12. same source 13. not a reliable source 14. same as 8. 15. same as 8. 16. same as 8. 17. non-web source, unverifiable 18. same as 17. 19. same as 17. 20. same as 17. 21. same as 5. 22. same as 5. 23. same as 5. 24. same as 5. 25. impossible to tell if it's an editorial or not 26. same as 5. 27. same as 5. 28. same as 5. 29. same as 5. 30. same as 5. 31. same as 5. 32. same as 5. 33. looks like a good source, but says nothing about "new anti-Semitism" 34. looks like a good source, but says nothing about "new anti-Semitism" 35. not a source, but does mention that Chip Berlet says nothing about "new anti-Semitism" 36. not really a source either. Also what is opinions and what is facts? 37. What is opinions and what is facts? 38. non-web source, unverifiable 39. non-web source, unverifiable 40. no idea what "Institute for Counter-Terrorism" is. Seems to be an Israeli think tank. 41. non-web source, unverifiable 42. non-web source, unverifiable 43. is Syrian TV a reliable source? Anyway, in this context I guess it's OK (perhaps a bit undue weight) 44. non-web source, unverifiable 45. non-web source, unverifiable 46. non-web source, unverifiable 47. good source, but no NAS (also a bit undue weight) 48. good source, but no NAS (also a bit undue weight) 49. book source, unverifiable 50. no mention of NAS, also - fact or opinion? 51. good source, no mention of NAS, clearly opinion and not fact 52. good source for opinions 53. opinions, but then it's clearly labelled as such 54. good source, but questionable if the source support the claim 55. ditto 56. non-web source, unverifiable 57. non-web source, unverifiable 58. not a source 59. non-web source, unverifiable 60. questionable source, but it's only used about his own views so it's probably OK 61. same as 60 62. newspaper article, good source 63. looks good 64. non-web source, unverifiable 65. non-web source, unverifiable 66. two sources in one, should be split. Neither of them mentions NAS 67. non-web source, unverifiable 68. No mention of NAS 69. 404 70. No mention of NAS 71. non-web source, unverifiable 72. non-web source, unverifiable 73. impossible to tell if it's an editorial or not 74. good source, but opinions in the source are presented as fact in the Wikipedia article. No mention of NAS 75. No mention of NAS 76. No mention of NAS 77. No mention of NAS 78. No mention of NAS 79. 404 80. No mention of NAS

// Liftarn

Liftarn, with respect, this is meaningless. Just because something is a book doesn't mean it's "unverifiable." The sources used in this article are some of the best academic sources available on the topic. You could try going to a library. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It is unverifiable in the sense that it's impossible to check it. It's no way to tell if the editor inserting those claims are honest or just waving a hand in a general direction and saying "It's in there somewhere.". Anyway, a lot of the sources make no mention of NAS and there are entire sections of this article that just lists various (probably) anti-Semitic incidents. David Duke is featured prominently, but his anti-Semitism is of the old version. // Liftarn

How do you know the sources don't mention NAS if they're "impossible to check"? Anyway, it isn't necessary for them to use that precise phrase, so long as they're talking about the concept of a resurgence of AS coming from a different direction. As for Duke, have you read the article? Part of the phenomenon is the alleged relationship between Islamists, the far right, and the left. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The entire section The far right and Islamism seems to more about what the British National Front called "The New Alliance", i.e. co-operation between Libya's colonel Khadaffi, Iran's ayatollah Khomeini, the American black Muslim Louis Farrakhan, and the NF. I don't know if there's a better name for it, but it should probably be split into it's own article. // Liftarn 16:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

In what sense is it "impossible to check it"? These are books written by well-known authors and published by mainstream publishers, available in or via any public or academic library, and available for purchase on Amazon. Possibly also available on Google books. By "impossible," do you in fact mean: "not checkable via the usual ten-second Google search"? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. There is no way to easily tell is the claim is true or not.

What do you mean? All you have to do is look at the books. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This article is badly need some trimming. For instance the list of anti-Semitic incidents. What has it to do with NAS? // Liftarn 16:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

What list of anti-Semitic incidents? Liftarn, I don't have time to respond to these points. The article is well-sourced, and it uses good sources rather than the usual websites you seem to be used to, and there is no list of anti-Semitic incidents, and the David Duke section is central to the concept, so all in all, you seem not to have understood or read the article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources is quite clear that books from reputable publishers are excellent sources, typically better than most of what can be found online. It's nice when there is a convenience link to an online copy of something, but a pretty small percentage of the Web is citable, whereas most books are. - Jmabel | Talk 06:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Section on conspiracism

I'm continuing with the rewrite/copy edit, currently working on a Conspiracism section. I'm rewriting some of it from scratch, and also moving sections of the existing article around, so it will continue to look a bit rough while it's in progress, and sections may be repeated. Please bear with me. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

If anyone strongly objects to what I'm doing, or wants to edit, either leave a note here, or e-mail me (I'll probably see an e-mail sooner than a post here.) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Slim: let me clarify that my recent edit was intended to be cooperative. If you don't think the information belongs in the article, let me know. (If there was an edit conflict, I apologize -- the possibility didn't occur to me until after I'd finished.) CJCurrie 00:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about adding that people are Jewish. We're using a lot of sources, some of them are Jews, some not, and with some I don't know. Trying to find out who is and isn't Jewish and pointing it out is tricky for a number of reasons. I think I'd prefer to leave it out until others weigh in with an opinion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, though I also think that the information is relevant as regards Kaufman's views of Israel and the Sharon government. I won't return it before others weigh in, though. CJCurrie 01:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with SV: it's not appropriate to attempt to categorise a source's ethnicity or religion as a justification for a particular view. Providing their credentials is enough, as an author, professor or associate of some particular organisation. (As I added to the Earl Raab section)--Leflyman^Talk 04:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

In that case, would you agree to note that Kaufman has historically supported the Israeli Labour Party? CJCurrie 01:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Additional articles for review as source material

Here are some additional articles which discuss or touch on the subject, and may be appropriate to use as references:

• "Welcome to York U, where tolerance is no longer tolerated" (Margaret Wente, Globe and Mail, 11 March 2003):

"In January, the university almost cancelled a speech by well-known Middle Eastern expert Daniel Pipes, after pro-Palestinian students and faculty accused him of racism. (In leftist politics, "racism" is now synonymous with sympathy toward Israel.) "No free speech for racists," they argued, as if Dr. Pipes were another Ernst Zundel. The university's Centre for International and Security Studies disinvited Dr. Pipes to a meeting with students because it was "uneasy" about him. The York University Faculty Association wrote a letter to its members accusing Dr. Pipes of being "committed to a racist agenda."

• "The new anti-semitism" (The Spectator, Mar 22, 2003 by Phillips, Melanie) (which I referenced as "The new nexus of anti-semitism", above):

"The key motif is a kind of Holocaust inversion, with the Israelis being demonised as Nazis and the Palestinians being regarded as the new Jews. Israel and the Jews are being systematically delegitimised and dehumanised - a necessary prelude to their destruction - with both Islamists and the Western media using anti-Zionism as a fig-leaf for prejudices rooted in both mediaeval Christian and Nazi demonology.

"This has produced an Orwellian situation in which hatred of the Jews now marches behind the Left's banner of antiracism and human rights, giving rise not merely to distortions, fabrications and slander about Israel in the media but also to mainstream articles discussing the malign power of the Jews over American and world policy."

• "Who hates the Jews now?" (The Spectator, Nov 29, 2003 by Strauss, Mark):

"[A]nother clement of the new anti-Semitism, which has little to do with Middle East politics, is often overlooked: the backlash against globalisation. The timeframe for this resurgence of Judaeophobia corresponds with the intensification of international links that has been taking place since the 1990s."[...]

"In their war against globalisation, the far Right has also found common cause with the new Left. Matt Hale, the leader of the US white supremacist World Church of the Creator, praised the 1999 anti-globalisation protesters in Seattle for shutting down 'talks of the Jew World Order'..."

• "The truth about anti-Semitism in Europe" (Mary Dejevsky, The Independent (London), Feb 20, 2004):

"That anti-Semitism persists in Europe - and in other parts of the world, including North America - does not make it in any way acceptable. But to call what is happening in Europe a "rising tide" of anti-Semitism is a gross exaggeration. At its least malevolent, the accusation may reflect innocent over-simplification. There are times, however, when it seems to conceal a political calculation whose intentions are very far from innocent."

[...]

"At the same time, it is hard to escape the impression that it suits the US Administration to depict Europe, especially France, as deeply and incorrigibly anti-Semitic. It helps to rationalise the divisions between the US and Europe and "explain" mainland Europe's opposition to the war in Iraq. American officials who should, and do, know better are throwing together Nazism, anti-Semitism, racism and hostility to Israel and Ariel Sharon in one indiscriminate heap. They are playing with fire and risk provoking the very racist backlash they purport to be trying to prevent."

• Lecturers back boycott of Israeli academics (Benjamin Joffe-Walt, The Guardian, Tuesday May 30, 2006):

Britain's largest lecturers' union yesterday voted in favour of a boycott of Israeli lecturers and academic institutions who do not publicly dissociate themselves from Israel's "apartheid policies".

[...]

David Hirsh, an AUT member, added: "It may not have anti-semitic motivations, but if you organise an academic boycott of Israeli Jewish academics but no one else in the world, that is an anti-semitic policy. What's Natfhe going to do? Set up a committee before which Israeli academics will be hauled?"

It may be notable (if not here, then in the Israeli apartheid article) that Professor Brian Klug has rejected the contention of the lecturer's union, writing earlier this month, "Spare us the analogies,

"In short, the intention of the Natfhe motion - what it seeks and why - is obscure. But even if the policy and rationale were clear and unambiguous, there is a deeper problem with motions of this sort that prevents them from attracting a broad base of support: they rely on the false (or limited) analogy implied by the word "apartheid". This is not to say that there are no points of comparison, for there are - just as there are in a host of other countries where minority ethnic and national groups are oppressed. Nor is it even to say that the suffering experienced by Palestinians is less than that endured by "non-whites" in South Africa: it may or may not be (although I am not sure how to do the sums). But as I have argued elsewhere: "The validity of the analogy does not depend on a catalogue of atrocities, however appalling"."

Also, I'd strongly suggest a reading of the detailed and indepth article, "The old-new anti-semitism" (The National Interest, Summer 2003 edition) by Robert Wistrick, Neuberger Professor of Modern History at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the head of its International Centre for the Study of Anti-Semitism:

"Whether the assault comes from the far Left or Right, from liberals or fundamentalists, its focus now is above all the collective Jew embodied in the State of Israel. Despite the incessant hairsplitting over the need to separate anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, this has in recent decades become a distinction without a meaningful difference. Whatever theoretical contortions one may indulge in, the State of Israel is a Jewish state. Whoever wants to defame or destroy it, openly or through polic ies that entail nothing else but such destruction, is in effect practicing the Jew-hatred of yesteryear, whatever their self-proclaimed intentions."

--Leflyman^Talk 06:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Leflyman. Those are great sources. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

What is the new anti-Semitism?

I think I've more or less finished the first section called What is the new anti-Semitism?. There are four subsections, each dealing with a different argument, rather than using sources who simply assert that this/that is/isn't anti-Semitism.

• The first sub-section says that there is such a thing as the new anti-Semitism, using as sources Jack Fischel, historian; Pierre-André Taguieff, philosopher; Irwin Cotler, former minister of Justice in Canada; Jonathan Sacks, Britain's chief rabbi; and Mark Strass, journalist.
• The second sub-section says the world is experiencing a wave of anti-Semitism, but that there's nothing new about it, using journalist Brian Klug. I'm going to try to add another source here, possibly historian Robert Wistrich, who I believe argues the same thing, although from a different perspective.
• The third sub-section says there is a new and disproportionate focus on Jews and Israel, but that it isn't anti-Semitism, using Steven Zipperstein, historian at Stanford.
• The fourth sub-section says there is a new wave of anti-Semitism, the fourth since the war, but that the underlying latency is the old anti-Semitism, using historian Yehuda Bauer, with a quote from historian Robert Wistrich. Bauer argues that this wave is particularly dangerous because of Islamism.

I've also created a section on Conspiracism, where I tried to explain the background to the new alliance between right, left, and the Muslim world, and the various theories and allegations that abound about Jews, which some writers identify as examples of the new anti-Semitism (or fourth wave of the old anti-Semitism).

Otherwise, I tried to tidy the rest, and moved sections around to improve the flow a little. There are some sections it might be best to delete e.g. the country-specific incidents, but I've left them in to see what others think. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• I've reordered a couple of the discussion paragraphs in "A new phenomenon" to keep quoted sources together. They were intermingled which lead to the confusing appearance of a sort of dialogue between the sources. --Leflyman^Talk 18:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

It was intended that way to avoid the appearance of a list. :-) Also, Jack Fischel should come near the top, because his is the main and most complete def. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I tweaked it a little for flow, and you were right: it's better the way you edited it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Slim, would you agree to the addition of a fifth section covering the views expressed by Norman Finkelstein and Tony Judt?

(I should clarify that the views held by these authors do not entirely coincide with those of Brian Klug. Finkelstein has argued that claims of increased anti-Semitism are not entirely inaccurate, but have been exaggerated for political ends. Judt has been particularly vocal in his assertion that the extent of European anti-Semitism has been exaggerated.) CJCurrie 01:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I was hoping we wouldn't have to use people like Finkelstein, Chomsky, Foxman, and Chesler as main sources, because they're so predictable, and tend to assert rather than argue. I have no problem basing a section on Judt, but I've just read his article in The Nation and I don't quite see what his argument is. He seems to say there both is and isn't a new form of anti-Semitism, and also seems at different times to say there's a resurgence of anti-Semitism and there isn't. Can you summarize the argument? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

To your first point: yes, I suppose that's probably a good idea. As to Judt, I thought that he was in the "resurgence-is-greatly-overstated" camp, but I'll look over the sources to be sure. CJCurrie 04:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I think he is saying that a little, although at other times in the article he attributes any resurgence to people's responses to Israel, so I wasn't quite sure which way he was swinging in the end. I'll read it again more carefully. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd say including Judt as a "mainstream" critic would be appropriate. Finkelstein less so. On a cursory read of Judt's piece in The Nation, I'd say he does acknowledge a rise in antisemitic incidents in Europe, while his point is such incidents aren't out of proportion to those in the US. His general contention is that scholars and writers (such as historian Omer Bartov) are wrong to conflate anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism. Although, he counters his own argument (as SV noticed) by including claims that, "It is increasingly clear to observers in France, for example, that assaults on Jews in working-class suburbs of big cities are typically driven by frustration and anger at the government of Israel." He has some off-the-wall statements later in the piece which give it an overall shrill "Israel doesn't speak for me" tone, but that seems to be his mode since writing the October 2003 "Israel: The Alternative" in the New York Review of Books, particular after what Leon Wieseltier said about him in The Forward , and the subsequent fallout from his article. --Leflyman^Talk 05:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I certainly have no objections if someone wants to put a section together on his position. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Suggested new section: NAS on the Internet

I was struck by one critical factor in what distinguishes the "old" form of antisemitism from the emergence of the "new": easy access to antisemitic materials and individuals via the Internet. I find this to be a gaping ommission in the article. Whereas in the past, people had to actively go out of their way to find such fringe literature/groups, now it is readily distributed through numerous online sources-- making it increasingly sophisticated in its dissemination.

While this may also be considered background for the AUT boycott discussion, it might be appropriate for a section about "New anti-Semitism on the Internet" or "New anti-Semitism distribution."

See, for example: Wendy Campbell, whose writings appear on numerous left- and extremist-right-wing sites, including Indymedia, Jeff Rense's website, and the openly antisemitic "Jewish Tribal Review", National Vanguard, and Christian Party (hyperlinks in comments)

Two years ago, the University of Birmingham banned staff personal websites after a Jerusalem Post article revealed that lecturer Sue Blackwell, one the sponsors of the AUT boycott initiative, had links on her website to Campbell (whom the article described as a "neo-Nazi activist"). Blackwell has since renounced and removed any such linkage: ("In denial on the internet", TheRundown.co.uk, 26 Jan 2006)

By self-admission, Campbell's site personifies the "nexus" of left-right anti-Zionist NAS:

MarWen Media, founded by media "mogul" Wendy Campbell, a self-avowed progressive "leftie" and joined by colleagues such as Mark Green, a self-avowed conservative "right-winger" who voted for Pat Buchanon in the last election, represents the emerging and growing trend of a new alliance between the left and the right for a common cause: a deep concern for the welfare of the people of our country, the United States of America, and preservation of the hard-won democratic values upon which our country was founded.

WE BELIEVE that old labels of what makes someone Left and Right , or Progressive or Conservative are all almost meaningless when it comes to the issue of US foreign policy on the Middle East, and most specifically, the "special relationship" between our country and Israel.

(note: I made major edits to the Campbell article)--Leflyman^Talk 07:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, Leflyman. By the way, I've been using the sources you posted, so thanks again for those.

Humus, good job on finding that other Octopus image. Berlet does actually use the word "Octopus" in his article (for shadow government, new world order etc), so I added that to the text. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for finding a use for them, and for your vast improvements to the article. I might suggest that the recent boycott proposal passed by Britain's NATFHE might get a mention (or perhaps a clarification that the NATFHE boycott was a separate motion than the one passed by AUT). While it was swiftly dismissed as "non-binding" due to the merger with AUT , it did make some waves. Some recent editorials of note, from The Guardian: "Israeli university boycott: how a campaign backfired"; and its response, "Freedom to think"--Leflyman^Talk 08:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I added a mention of the recent one, using one of the sources you posted earlier: "The proposal was overturned at an emergency conference on May 26, 2005, but was revived again in May 2006, when the union once again voted to boycott Israeli lecturers and academic institutions who do not publicly dissociate themselves from their government's policies. The resolution, which is only "advisory" to the union, has brought "dishonour and sheer ridicule" upon the membership, according to Ronnie Frazer of the International Academic Friends of Israel." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, that's where a clarification needs to go: the most recent one was initiated by a different teachers' union, NATFHE-- a separate organisation from AUT, which floated the original one. The two unions have since merged into a new body, University and College Union (UCU), which nullified the NATFHE boycott vote. The article's wording makes it sound as if it were the same proposal by the same union. As noted above, please see the May 30 relase by AUT regarding their position on the matter: --Leflyman^Talk 15:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, will do, or feel free to tweak it. I lost track of who was voting for which thing and what was or wasn't binding on whom. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)