Talk:Anti-Zionism/Archive 7

message: Hi User:IronDuke,
It has to be un-controversial. See the very lengthy discussion here. If you're not sure, check the policy here. Because it is controverisal to associate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, it's best to leave the category out. Cheers. --Uncle Bungle 19:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Uncle Bungle, thanks for the link. I think it would be more a propos if we were discussing whether a specific individual were an antisemite, and whether to put him in the category of AS people, or whether to put Anti-Zionists in such a category. But we're not doing that. Anti-semitism is virtually always controversial. But what isn't controversial is whether notable people have linked it to AZ (or the AZ folks themselves have). That's not something we can disgaree about, or is a matter of POV. It's just true. IronDuke 20:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anti-semitism is almost always controversial, I agree, but this article has to do with political zionism more than racism. I've got no doubt that someone researching anti-Semitism will find their way here via "new anti-Semitism". I understand that notable people have associated AZ with AS, but thats a controversial association (which the article asserts), and WP:CAT is clear. With these points in mind, I think it would be better to have the category removed. Thank you. --Uncle Bungle 20:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're absolutely correct that the association can at times be controverial. That's not at issue here. But do you think there's any doubt about the fact that the subject of AS is raised in the article? IronDuke 20:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This article has an entire section dedicated to it, therefore it belongs to the Cat. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, the article has an entire section dedicated to it, however, the association between AZ and AS is rather contested. Should anti-Zionism be categorized as anti-Semitism, I have to say, no. Per WP:CAT, unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category. We're talking about the article (and related idea) as a whole, not the section, so no, it does not belong to the Cat. --Uncle Bungle 05:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you misunderstand how it works. By putting an article in a cat, we are not equating anti-Zionism with antisemitism. It is uncontroversial that AZ is a part of the discussion on AS. Other examples of articles in that cat are Anti-Semite and Jew, Anti-Defamation League and Global Anti-Semitism Review Act of 2004. ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cat antisemitism 

message: This is an opposition to the MR./Mrs. opinion sited in one of the sections above. There is a huge difference between anti-zionism and anti-semitism. If you wanna go back in history you can find find that the word semitic refers either to Jews/Arabs, thus Arabs cannot be anti-semitic, but most of them are anti-zoinist.
Second, when someone is anti-semitic he is against all the jews (and also Arabs consequently), but when someone believes in anti-zionism then he/she is agains jews who went to palestine and agree that Israel is a country that should be built by force. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by A J Damen (talk • contribs) 18:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  opposition to one of the opinions above 

message: I saw a number of edit reverts so wanted to try the idea that "rights" are defined somewhere else (and thus should be stated as to where this right is derived from) whereas you can make your own "claims" without need of any s. For the intro it needs to be snappy and short so also removed the (bracketed bit) about Palestine as it'll only gather revert edits. Ttiotsw 00:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A good change, much better than the hack job I did ;)  --DachannienTalkContrib 12:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rights verses claims in the first sentence. 

message: Perhaps Random Passer-by could explain why he saw fit to remove my edits. Yehoishophot Oliver 00:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand. I wasn't advocating, I was simply developing the explanation of the reasons for the opposition to bi-nationalism. Yehoishophot Oliver 06:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither do I understand. Not quite being a Zionist myself, I support Oliver. --Chussid 06:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Random Passer-by reverts edits  

message: I've removed links to the most obviously non-reliable sources. Personal propaganda sites apparently run by a Private Mail Box in Brooklyn do not meet Wikipedia standards. Please bring reliable sources that back up these claims. Jayjg (talk) 01:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whats the difference between Jews Against Zionism and the Jewish Virtual Library, or one of a score of other partisan internet sites whose authors are unknown but pushed as a WP:RS? --Uncle Bungle 03:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I only mentioned the JVL as an example of the myriad of random websites cited as sources and viciously defended. It is not cited in this article. There are JVL entries without sources, but the problem is not limited to the JVL, which was merely cited as an example. --Uncle Bungle 04:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry. Want to chop the whole thing and let your original question ride? It's fine by me if it's fine by you. --Uncle Bungle 04:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Reverted, twice by now. If you delete this as 'unreliable sources', please be objective and delete the others as well. If you delete this website again claiming that it is an 'unreliable source', I am going to do exactly the same with pro-Zionist sources such as truepeace.org and standwithus.com. By the way, it says at the bottom of every page on jewsagainstzionism.com that the address is Wilson Street 183 in Brooklyn. --Chussid 16:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: That website fail WP:RS and should not be used in this article. It may be used only in an article about itself, that is, if it warrants an article in WP, which I doubt. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't quite follow the article that we should source some lone anonymous website like Jewsagainstzionism, on the grounds that we would source a reliable website like JVL, which is not referenced in this article anyway; and I'm definitely skeptical of the logic that if Jewsagainstzionism is not accepted then "I am going to do exactly the same with pro-Zionist sources".  Gzuckier 18:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable sources 

message: The whole section on the correlation between Anti-Zionism and antisemitism requires major rewriting -- if not complete deletion.
When Kaplan and Small find "an almost perfect correlation between anti-Zionist attitudes and frank anti-Semitism" they're concluding that both phenomena usually go hand-in-hand -- NOT that they're the same thing. (To understand this, think that you can also find an almost perfect correlation between crashing your car into a tree and driving drunk -- and they're not the same thing.)
Counterexamples of the equation anti-Zionism = antisemitism abound, but I don't see them cited here. No mention whatsoever is made of such well-known personalities as Noam Chomsky or Norman Finkelstein, who can be accused of being anti-Zionist zealots, lefty loonies, etc., but NOT antisemites. 
The heading "When anti-Zionism is not anti-semitism" should be removed because it gives the impression that Wikipedia agrees with the ideas ascribed to "some" in the paragraph below it. Alternately, it could be reworded to "When anti-Zionism, according to some, is not anti-semitism", but I think we all agree that it would be an awkward heading, so let's better remove it.
Also, the contents of such paragraph is highly debatable: "Some say that when critism against Israeli policies or the occupation of the Palestinian territories does not cross the line to object to Israel's right to exist it should not be regarded as anti-Semitism." This is a non-scientific claim. The definition of antisemitism used must be coherent with that given by Wikipedia: "Antisemitism (alternatively spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism) is hostility toward or prejudice against Jews as a religious, racial, or ethnic group, which can range in expression from individual hatred to institutionalized, violent persecution."
"Crossing the line" and denying Israel's right to exist does not automatically mean being hostile or prejudiced against Jews as a group, any more than denying Scotland's right to be an independent country automatically means being hostile or prejudiced against Scotspeople. Please see  to get a very clear example of someone who is totally opposed to Israel's very existence, yet is fully compassionate about the tragedy of the Holocaust, clears Israel of the odious Nazi analogies and is himself a Jew.
Wikipedia is about information, not about making points. It is a pity that this article uncritically presents viewpoints, such as the equating of antisemitism and anti-Zionism, without a hint of supporting evidence; or that it instructs its readers about when to consider someone an antisemite. Please rewrite this section to meet elementary scientific criteria, or delete it altogether.200.82.50.232 04:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I Agree with the statements above. The section is definitely a problem the way it is now. Feer 01:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Calling it unscientific is WP:OR. Formal logic (logical though it may seem) cannot overturn proper sources under WP:RS. That having been said, the fact that you are "queer" and "politically liberal" and a "feminist" and even a "Jew" who "does not consider herself a Zionist" is irrelevant to this issue entirely. --Meshulam 19:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 'unscientific'? meshulam these are silly word games. the 'scientific' source (k & s) is fine, the problem is that muir lies about their report with the claim about an 'almost perfect correlation', furthermore this lie is contradicted by what we quote from k & s. meshulam, you really do need to learn something about elementary logic, or maybe you are deliberately wasting time? sorry i can't work out which i should assume in order to assume good faith.  ⇒ bsnowball  09:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All of your insults notwithstanding, you appear to have missed my point. I did not say what is scientific or not. I said that our job on wikipedia was not to judge how scientific something is, but rather to report it. The fact that such a study took place, the findings (including statistics, etc.) and the conclusions reached by the "scientists" who made the study should be reported. If someone has refuted any of the claims that muir (or anyone else) made, and if his findings comply with WP:RS, then by all means that should be reported too. As it is, I could care less what the conclusion is. My position from the beginning was merely to comply with Wikipedia policy. (On a side note, I know that some of the neturei karta pages have been held not to comply with WP:RS, something that I understand but do not agree with. However, the sites have been deemed fit for use when presenting what the faction of NK represented on the specific site believes. NK has done a good job of rebutting the claim that anti-Zionism equals anti-Semitism, and I'm shocked that nobody has brought them in yet, on this issue). --Meshulam 17:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: kaplan & small is the scientific paper, we quote that, it doesn't establish any correlation. muir offers a tendentious interpretation of that paper, specifically her claim k & s "found an almost perfect correlation between anti-Zionist attitudes and frank anti-Semitism" is total bullshit. you can check this by reading the k & s paper. my point is muir should not be there because she lies about the k & s paper. this is why i think it should be removed. real simple stuff.  ⇒ bsnowball  17:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equating Anti-Zionism to antisemitism not scientific 

message: I've added a comment on the Kaplan and Small paper which concludes that most anti-zionists are also antisemites. These two authors DO NOT conclude that anti-Zionism is itself antisemitic and their study does not aim at resolving this issue; and they say so clearly and explicitly. I've quoted the relevant sentences from their article.--200.117.33.225 16:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Kaplan & Small study 

message: Please discuss this on the Talk:Zionism and anti-Zionism (resources) article.--Sefringle 06:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? It is shared between several articles, some quite long. There is a room for improvement and expansion, though. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article looks like an ending of another article. It does not look like an article, and only provides links and resources. Usuaully this is found at the end of an article, and that is where it belongs.--Sefringle 20:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  See Holocaust (resources), Antisemitism (resources). ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merge

message: The claim "They [i.e. Kaplan & Small] found an almost perfect correlation between anti-Zionist attitudes and frank anti-Semitism" should be deleted. It is literally quoted from the highly partisan Diana Muir article (reference 19) and it is not accurate. 
I've taken the trouble to go over K&S's study and nowhere do they find an "almost perfect correlation". In fact, what they state is:
It is noteworthy that fewer than one-quarter of those with anti-Israel index scores of only 1 or 2 harbor anti-Semitic views (as defined by anti-Semitic index scores exceeding 5), which supports the contention that one certainly can be critical of Israeli policies without being anti-Semitic. However, among those with the most extreme anti-Israel sentiments in our survey (anti-Israel index scores of 4), 56% report anti-Semitic leanings.
In other words, more than 75% of moderate critics of Israel are not antisemitic, and even among the most radical detractors of the country, fully 44% don't harbor antisemitic sentiments. That doesn't qualify as the "almost perfect correlation" that Muir (but not Kaplan and Small) finds.
I still believe the section on anti-Zionism and antisemitism should be completely rewritten or deleted altogether. To begin with, and if nobody objects, I'll delete the sentences which have been picked up from Diana Muir's inaccurate article. 200.82.66.34 00:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Almost perfect correlation" not so perfect 

message: The above discussion ("npov... now that you mention it") is closed. I was unable to convince Jayjg of the site's authenticity, so I gave up. Instead, I reconstructed the entire section, using only reliable sources. The sources I used are all scientific publications, from universities. After reconstructing the section, using only reliable sources, I received an emailed threat from Jayjg, who is a very senior administrator here and also a Jewish Zionist. He threatened to permanently ban me from Wikipedia. This just for the information of the community. This shows what his real objectives are. His objective is not to maintain WP:NPOV - it is to censor anything about Haredi Jewish anti-Zionism. He is completely obsessed with deleting anything even remotely inferring that the vast majority of Haredim (especially Hasidim) have always been and still are strongly anti-Zionist. Now that I have completely re-written the section, and he no longer has any ground to complain of WP:RS, he falls into plain threats. I am quite shocked. I did not think that a former distinguished member of the Arbitration Committee could go this low. --Chussid 16:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is asur to reveal the contents of mail to a non-recipient. You may have missed that lesson because while it was being given, you were busy on the internet, which according to you ins asur according to all poskim. I can't imagine what threats he made, but I imagine it had to do with exposing the fact that you are a sockpuppet for Daniel575, and have already been permanently banned from Wikipedia. --Meshulam 17:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent summary, except for the fact that I didn't threaten him at all, I merely asked him to retire his sockpuppet and not create a new one. I wonder if someone also missed a lesson or two about "motsi shaym ra". Jayjg (talk) 17:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Threats

message: The arguments presented so far are not completely relevant.  Defendent is accurate in stating that MLK could not have been at Harvard "shortly" before his death, unless we interpret shortly to mean "a year ago".  Arguments are accurate in that respect.  The prohibitions in OR do *not* apply to off-wiki sources.  Any web page, or authority off-wiki may do OR without prohibition and we may cite to them without prohibition *from that rule*.  OR only applies to wikipedians not doing their own OR.  It does not apply to someone else off-wiki doing it and us citing them doing it.
That being said, perhaps we can drop this OR herring and focus on the key issue in this case.  That, to my mind, only relies on verifiability, which is to say, is the source reliable and is the argument previously published by a third-party? Or does it meet one of the V exceptions to that general policy? Wjhonson 07:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is perhaps moot.  The google book I've now cited, references the original Lipset quote exactly which is to a 1968 dinner, not a Harvard appearence at all.  It does in addition reference that the quote has been changed and misused over time.  This possibly led to the erroneous re-citing at SFGate and this can of worms.  I would encourage that editor who evidently cited the original Encounter, to next time actually read it instead of lifting the cite from another (uncited here) work.  That would help avoid this sort of thing in the future. Wjhonson 07:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Harvard Crimson and MLK (Part 2)