Talk:New antisemitism/Archive 11

message: I had been hoping that a greater number of uninvolved and neutral editors would have provided their views on this matter by now.  I'm a bit concerned that this "controversy" could soon degenerate into the usual stale bickering between SlimVirgin's supporters and SlimVirgin's opponents; a few outside voices would be useful to ensuring that this unwelcome prospect doesn't come to fruition.  I thank John Kenney for weighing in on this matter, and I hope others will follow in his footsteps.
For the time being, it will probably occasion little surprise among readers that I'm not convinced by the counter-arguments of Slim and Jay.  Their comments about "Original Research" are especially puzzling: the NOR policy is designed to prevent editors from *adding* unverifiable and novel research, not to prevent editors from removing obviously flawed research.  I'm also uncertain as to how a source that misinterprets Szajkowski by 34 years and claims "Protocols" as socialist-derived can honestly or accurately be described as reliable.  To give credit where it's due, I appreciate that Moshe hasn't resorted to any transparent policy distortions in his remarks.  (Even though I disagree with his conclusions, I appreciate that Moshe is approaching this discussion in a reasonable manner.) CJCurrie 06:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that any of my compatriots have resorted to "transparent policy distortions" either.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say they did.  CJCurrie 06:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree.  Looking over it again, I had to laugh, just because the section became much more POV pro-1985-Flannery than it did undermine him (my intent wasn't to do either, but I figured by combining them it would become clear that the material didn't belong).  In any case, the paragraphs are clearly out of place.  This is a section on the history of New Antisemitism, not a section for controversial and dubious single-person opinions not even speaking to that topic.  In the sections below, of course, that's exactly what we provide: various individual scholars' opinions on the New Antisemitism.  Here, we're supposed to be providing a neutral section on the history of New Antisemitism.  I'm pretty sure nobody can make the case that Flannery 1985 represents a fair and neutral chronicle of antisemitism on the left through history.  Quite obviously it's two paragraphs of idiosyncratic opinion, considering that it completely reversed itself over a period of 20 years.   Unless someone explains otherwise, I completely support CJCurrie's decision to remove it.Mackan79 06:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The revised edition of a book always reflects the author's intent better, and the most recent scholarship. Jayjg (talk) 01:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lordy, this is rich.  The original version was published by a credible firm; the "revised version" was effectively self-published and is demonstrably inaccurate.  I think these facts may trump the "temporal factor" somewhat.  CJCurrie 01:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Updated remarks

message: This is the essence of Wikipedia's Original Research policy:  "Articles may not contain any unpublished material, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position."
There is nothing in the policy that prevents me from challenging the reliability of a source on the talk page, nor is there anything in the policy that prevents me from removing obviously flawed information.  
I hope that uninvolved parties reading this page will understand the defensive cry of "No original research" for what it is: an excuse, and a deflection.  CJCurrie 19:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree – the charge here is spurious to its very core.  Article pages can't have original research; talk pages can.  The editorial process indeed consists of 90%+ original research, but it is rarely of this depth and judiciousness.--G-Dett 21:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I concur.  Doing "original research" and presenting it on a talk page as a reason for removing material from an article cannot possibly violate any wikipedia policy. john k 23:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: John, you've always objected to the OR policy, and you're not very familar with it. We can't have editors impose their personal views on source material that's regarded by scholars of antisemitism as reliable and worth using in their own work. If other people use it, we may use it too, even if CJCurrie doesn't like it. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Slim, try to avoid strawman arguments: John hasn't "objected to OR policy," he's objected to what he sees as a fallacious invocation of it.  Indeed, a central element of his objection to the current interpolation of the Flannery material (and it's an objection I've voiced here as well) is that "including Flannery and implying that his comments have anything to do with 'new antisemitism' is a 'novel synthesis,'" and therefore a violation of WP:OR. --G-Dett 15:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As G-Dett says.  Additionally, your argument here seems completely untenable.  An encyclopedia article has to be selective.  It has to make choices about what it talks about.  There is no  obligation to include any particular claims, or lengthy summaries of the work of a single scholar, particularly when such claims can be demonstrated to be tendentious and dubious by looking at the sources cited by Flannery himself.  And I don't object to the OR policy, and I am perfectly familiar with it.  I think the OR policy is necessary and great, but that it has to be interpreted reasonably and sanely, and that there have been some problems with interpreting "OR" very broadly.  In this particular case I think that the key issue is that OR policy applies to article content, not to talk page discussion. The change to the article suggested by CJCurrie is to remove the discussion of Flannery.  The article sans discussion of Flannery would not contain any original research, so there is no violation of WP:NOR.  The issue is not whether a change to an article is made based on "original research."  It's whether the article itself becomes a vehicle for promoting original research.  Removing the Flannery stuff would not make the article a vehicle for promoting CJ's critique of Flannery.  It  would simply remove the Flannery stuff.  It would be OR to add CJ's critique of Flannery to the article, but nobody is advocating that.  Furthermore, as  G-Dett says above, and I have suggested before, the inclusion of  Flannery's discussion of 19th century antisemitism in the context of an article about  "new antisemitism" supposedly arising after 1967, at earliest, is deeply problematic.  Certainly by the standards you have expressed on many previous occasions, SV, we should have to find some sources which discuss Flannery's discussion of 19th century antisemitism, in particular, in the context of a discussion of "New Antisemitism."  Either way, including the Flannery material seems a lot closer to OR than removing it would be. john k 16:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Please review leading question. Jayjg (talk) 01:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should we just take this to mediation now, given that your side doesn't seem interested in debating the substance of the issue?  CJCurrie 01:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: About "Original Research"

message: One of the guiding principles of Wikipedia's editorial policy is that verifiability, rather than truth, is the standard for any piece of information to be included on an article page.  That is, editors who wish to include *accurate* information on an article page must be able to demonstrate that the information has been published by a credible source.
This policy is meant to prevent editors from disseminating unverifiable personal knowledge (eg. "Celebrity X ran over my dog!"), and from promoting novel and untested theories (eg. "Were we too quick to dismiss phrenology?").
To judge from recent discussions, however, this principle may be open to abuse and misinterpretation.  Slim, Jay et al almost seem to have inverted the principle, to suggest that demonstrably *inaccurate* information may be deemed encyclopedic if it appears in a reliable source (what?).  They also seem to be suggesting that efforts to demonstrate the inaccuracy of such information are contrary to Wikipedia policy.  This, of course, is nonsense.
I had hoped that neutral editors would have weighed in the Flannery controversy by now.  Since that hasn't happened, I will remove the paragraph again.  I make no apologies for doing this, as I emphatically do not require anyone's permission to remove demonstrably false information from the article.
To anyone who wishes to return the paragraph, I offer the following challenge: Why should we include false, misleading and irrelevant material from a book that was for all intents and purposes self-published?  ("But the author wrote a classic study twenty years earlier!" is not a suitable response.)  CJCurrie 01:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please review leading question. Jayjg (talk) 01:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should we just take this to mediation now, given that your side doesn't seem interested in debating the substance of the issue?  CJCurrie 01:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A thought

message: Do those involved accept that the characterisations of their positions and arguments are accurate and fair? --Mel Etitis  (Talk) 18:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been wanting to respond briefly, but simply haven't quite put it together yet.  I'm assuming we're still waiting for a comment from Slim or Jay, though?  In any case, I'll try to respond today.Mackan79 16:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Next stage

message: I see three major issues:
#Flannery,
#The Responses section, and
#Scope and International Jewish Voices (“IJV”)
I'll refer to CJCurrie et al as CGM if that's ok, based on volume of commens, while noting that we may all differ on specific points.
=====Flannery=====
Regarding the Flannery discussion, the SJL position is flexible.  SJL rejects the idea that Flannery should be removed altogether, because they see it as reliably sourced and relevant.  It is 1.) Relevant, because it addresses the history of antisemitism on the Left, as a background for the current phenomenon, and to explain to what extent NAS is new.  It is 2.) Reliably sourced because it comes from an eminent historian of antisemitism.  Moreover, it represents his most recent commentary on the subject, even if previous statements diverge.  Additionally, CJCurrie's specific criticisms are primarily original research, as they have not previously been published, and therefore should not be considered relevant.
Nevertheless, SJL remains open to amending the specific treatment of the Flannery material to accommodate new sources.  
=====Responses section=====
Regarding the Responses section, the arguments have not been as clearly fleshed out, but fall into two broad categories: 1.) Whether specific sources are accurately characterized, and 2.) Whether the section's scope or title should be changed away from "Responses."  Regarding 1.),  SJL generally argues that the characterizations are accurate, noting the most relevant material to the concept of NAS.  Regarding 2.), SJL argues that the section describes responses by governments and universities to the emergence of NAS, and thus is appropriately titled.  Moreover, SJL argues that there clearly have been such responses to – whatever we want to call it – the concept or phenomenon of NAS.  Thus, a section on these responses is entirely appropriate to the article on NAS.
Still, SJL have stated their openness to changing the title to something like “Actions by Governments and Groups.” 
=====Scope and IJV=====
Regarding the scope issue and the IJV material, the arguments again have not entirely been fleshed out. Essentially, SJL argues that CGM are trying to insert critical material which is not relevant to the concept of NAS except through their own original synthesis.  Regarding IJV, it is argued that the group has not addressed NAS, but merely commented on a perceived lack of openness to criticism of Israel, primarily within the Jewish community.  Specifically, the group has not addressed the confluence of antisemitism among  the Left, far-Right and Islamism, the central thesis of NAS.  It is not for us to decide that their statements are a criticism of NAS.   Moreover, the only basis on which their comments could be made relevant in this way would be to assume the straw-man that NAS accuses all Israel-critics of being antisemitic.  We should not make this assumption.
Regarding the lead and general scope, SJL argue that NAS is the concept of a new confluence of anti-Semitism among the Left, far-right and Islamism.  As such, they argue that the lead is accurate, and reflects the proper scope for the article.  While certain writers do focus on the issue of anti-Zionism and criticism of Israel, this is only one aspect, and is secondary.   The primary theory, as discussed by academic writers, regards the new alliance between previously unaligned or even hostile groups.  As such, this should be the standard of relevance for the article, and is accurately and appropriately reflected in the lead.Mackan79 19:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Slim, Jayjg, and Leifern (SJL)

message: Regarding the scope issue and the IJV material, the arguments again have not entirely been fleshed out. Essentially, SJL argues that CGM are trying to insert critical material which is not relevant to the concept of NAS except through their own original synthesis.  Regarding IJV, it is argued that the group has not addressed NAS, but merely commented on a perceived lack of openness to criticism of Israel, primarily within the Jewish community.  Specifically, the group has not addressed the confluence of antisemitism among  the Left, far-Right and Islamism, the central thesis of NAS.  It is not for us to decide that their statements are a criticism of NAS.   Moreover, the only basis on which their comments could be made relevant in this way would be to assume the straw-man that NAS accuses all Israel-critics of being antisemitic.  We should not make this assumption.
Regarding the lead and general scope, SJL argue that NAS is the concept of a new confluence of anti-Semitism among the Left, far-right and Islamism.  As such, they argue that the lead is accurate, and reflects the proper scope for the article.  While certain writers do focus on the issue of anti-Zionism and criticism of Israel, this is only one aspect, and is secondary.   The primary theory, as discussed by academic writers, regards the new alliance between previously unaligned or even hostile groups.  As such, this should be the standard of relevance for the article, and is accurately and appropriately reflected in the lead.Mackan79 19:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Scope and IJV

message: To look at the same three issues outlined above:
#Flannery,
#The Responses section, and
#Scope and International Jewish Voices (“IJV”)
=====Flannery=====
It is argued:
:That Flannery should not be quoted in this article, because
:*His writings pertain to an era when NAS was not under debate, so the arguments pertain to a different phenomenon than what is covered in NAS
:*The most recent book is published by the Catholic Church, which amounts to self-publishing, hence not noteworthy
:*In any case, Flannery interprets his own sources in a way that discredits his views, so they should not be included
=====Responses=====
It is argued:
:That the section is mislabeled, because the various organizations do not explicitly accept the premise for NAS but instead focus on antisemitic incidents per se. A more neutral heading, one that doesn't accept the premise behind NAS, is needed.
=====Scope and International Jewish Voices (“IJV”)=====
It is argued:
:That the IJV initiative is relevant to NAS, in that the IJV objects to the (alleged) practice of labeling criticism of Israel, even radical criticism, as antisemitic or the result of self-loathing.
--Leifern 18:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The other side

message: It is argued:
:That the IJV initiative is relevant to NAS, in that the IJV objects to the (alleged) practice of labeling criticism of Israel, even radical criticism, as antisemitic or the result of self-loathing.
--Leifern 18:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Scope and International Jewish Voices (“IJV”)

message: I can only speak for myself - Slim, Jayjg, and I have never sat down and compared notes, and I don't even know who these fellow editors are in real life.
The definition of New antisemitism is provided in the article itself, but if I were to paraphrase it: the central thesis behind those who advocate its existence is that it is antisemitism in effect and often in intent within the pretext of hostility to Israel. None of the proponents of NAS claim that mere criticism of Israel constitutes NAS; nor that it has a home on the political spectrum. Quite the contrary: they observe that whatever differences may exist on other issues, those who speak and practice NAS find common cause in demonizing Israel for no other apparent reason than that it is a Jewish state. In other words, while they observe that the confluence is there, it doesn't define the phenomenon.
I've always had problems with the term "concept." Really, we're talking about a phenomenon here that some say exists, and others don't.
I think the article at the moment suffers from the kind of bloating that is typical in contentious, unstable articles - where all sides want to include as many citations as possible. I much this prefer to revert warring, and I would warn against efforts to stop the tendency at the moment.
As with all other contentious issues, it's important to draw careful distinctions. I've corresponded privately with IJV (so I'll concede that my correspondence isn't an admissible source), but they've made it clear that they are against antisemitism on principle and agnostic on the phenomenon of NAS. What they object to is the notion that only viewpoints that fall within a certain range are acceptable in the Jewish community. Their contention is debatable in itself, but it doesn't support the argument that assertions of NAS are only intended to squash a constructive debate.
I think the issues need to be parsed:
1) Does NAS exist? Those who believe it does have evidence in favor of it, and there is lots of it.
2) Is the charge of NAS used as a means to stifle constructive debate about Israel's policies? Again, those who argue this should present evidence.
It seems absurd to me to claim that since some people possibly throw around the charge of antisemitism too readily, it can't possibly exist. But that's an editorial comment. --Leifern 13:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That anti-semitism exists is not something that I imagine anyone would dispute. Whether there is a distinct phenomenon which ought to be described as  "New Anti-semitism" is a lot more problematic, and it only confuses the issue to conflate the two questions. john k 07:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Leifern's comments

message: Leifern and CJCurrie get the main points above, so just a few thoughts:
#Re Flannery, I think there is a problem with using Flannery's quotations of other authors.  When looking for material, I think we should avoid second-hand quotations where contested.
#Re Flannery, I also see a problem with using controversial opinions in what is supposed to be a neutral history section.  While much of the article documents controversial opinions, and appropriately, I think that becomes less appropriate in a neutral history section. (Thinking particularly about the "the further left one goes the more the antisemitism" statements here.)
#Re scope, I think CJCurrie lays it out quite well.  I'd note this is precisely what Klug argues, that there are 3 different things being described as NAS.  I agree this needs to be clarified, while also allowing that some consider it all the same phenomenon.
#If we clarified that, I also think it would help the problem with the Responses section, that it currently seems to be offered in support of the controversial NAS "theory" through our arguable equivocation.  If we acknowledged the potential distinction, that issue might also be resolved without having to do much more.
#Re scope and IJV, this is my main issue.  Essentially, I think SJL ignores the second main route of relevancy to this article, of the opposition, which argues that the NAS theory stifles fair debate.  Interestingly, our article clearly acknowledges this position in the discussion section, where it's well represented.  Yet, with responses and evidence, it seems to be disregarded.  I think the opposition argument should be considered relevant for both.
#Finally, as G-Dett points out, that analysis may not be necessary, if we just focus on the connections drawn by the sources.  At the same time, I'd simply note that our use of Flannery seems to be based on exactly this kind of editorial determination.  Thus, I guess I'd argue for a broader standard of relevancy, in which both Flannery and IJV could be considered relevant, on their own merits, and whether or not the term "NAS" is explicitly invoked.  Indeed, I think this is consistent with the aim of this article to discuss the NAS concept (including theory and phenomenon) rather than simply the term, an aim which then requires some editorial consideration. Mackan79 07:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mackan79's response

message: May I request an update on the status of our mediation process?  I think it may be time to move to the next stage, notwithstanding that certain editors have chosen not to participate in the preliminary discussions.  CJCurrie 01:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A bout of flu kept me in bed for four or five days, and I'm still recovering, though on my feet again.  I'm now going through all the materials. --Mel Etitis  (Talk) 12:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation?

message: What is the status of Mel's mediation for this article?--G-Dett 22:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Status of Mediation?

message: I'm tempted to fail this nomination as this article is being rocked by edit warring (I'm really surprised to see such an active discussion); it looks nowhere the stability required in WP:WIAGA (criteria 5).  However, I don't like to pass/fail articles, so I'll let someone else judge.  It may die down by the time that someone gets around to look over it. Hbdragon88 05:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I assumed the undated GA nominee template was left over from the previous nomination. —Ashley Y 06:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't going off the GAC list - I just got here and saw that a  template.  Did someone fail it and forget to replace it with ? Hbdragon88 06:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there is a FailedGA as well as the GAnominee. —Ashley Y 06:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah.  It was nominated on 21 February 2007  and has not yet been acted on. Hbdragon88 06:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA nom 

message: ... because this is the third time I've asked it. I've looked at the David Aaronovitch article  you offered as a source for the term "new antisemitism" being used purely as a pejorative political term, but I can't see where he says that. Can you give us the quote, please? SlimVirgin (talk) 18:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can hardly take you seriously after you misrepesented me on this topic. In any case, since :Category:Pejorative political terms has been deleted, this discussion is moot. All that's left is questions about bad-faith behaviour, which are better discussed on user talk pages than here. —Ashley Y 19:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ashley, please answer this question ...

message: The one substantive point you've made to me in this exchange is your claim that for something to be listed as a political term it must be "solely" a political term.  That's obviously false, Jay.  Even a cursory look at the list ("Bottom feeder," "Ukrainian holocaust," "Lustration," "Lobbying," "Stalking Horse," "Heartland," "Ideology," "Talking Point") will tell you that.--G-Dett 19:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead of arguing, please start attributing. And keep in mind, Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category. Jayjg (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please review the reliable sources we use in this article, Jay, and then review the second paragraph of the  innocuous post that precipitated your personal attack and phony accusation of "trolling."  That represents the tip of the iceberg; there is, as you well know, a wealth of reliable source material describing "new antisemitism" as a political term.--G-Dett 20:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, I'm sure there are some people that claim it is. Not that you've actually quoted any of them. Jayjg (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're "sure" that there are indeed reliable sources describing the term "new antisemitism" as a political term, then what is it you're asking me for?  What is the hold-up here?  You want me to go fetch all those shiny colored easter eggs in plain view?--G-Dett 21:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Completely arbitrary & capricious section break #3

message: Did I say that? Don't you ever get tired to begging the question? Jayjg (talk) 21:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you that I should attribute, implying that I hadn't? Yes.  Did you say that you were "sure" that the RS-material I said was there, was indeed there waiting to be attributed? Yes.  Did you say anything about easter eggs?  No.  That was a metaphor.--G-Dett 21:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You haven't attributed, and I haven't said I was "sure" that there was RS material there. Some people does not mean reliable sources; two of the main people making that claim are you and Ashley Y. Read me carefully, quote me correctly, and stop making the fallacy of many questions. Jayjg (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote that "there is, as you well know, a wealth of reliable source material describing "new antisemitism" as a political term," to which you responded, "Well, I'm sure there are some people that claim it is. Not that you've actually quoted any of them."  Now you're saying the "them" in that last sentence means me and Ashley.  That you were faulting me for not quoting myself and Ashley.  You're not making any sense, Jay, and your high-horse has a lame leg.--G-Dett 22:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes.--G-Dett 21:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Careful there, G-Dett. I've seen the same sort of subtle needling tempt a truly good writer into self-destruction. (Of course, it didn't help matters that he had a short fuse.) Step back from the brink, have a nice cup of tea, take a deep breath. Dino 21:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: G-Dett still has only 162 edits to the encyclopedia in 10 months, yet thinks it's okay to spend his time abusing editors on talk pages. It's time to start creating and writing articles, instead of baiting. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm flattered by your attentions, Slim, though I wish they took the form of substantive engagement rather than running edit-tallies and other surveillance. You're wrong, of course, that trying patiently to get clearance on talk pages for what should be minor common-sense improvements to articles constitutes "baiting."  (It represents, rather, my unwavering respect for WP:Consensus even when I'm forced to deal with ideological edit-warriors with admin powers).  You're right, though, that it's time to start creating and writing some articles.  You'll be pleased to know I'm writing a batch of articles on H.R. 3077 (cum 509) and so-called "Title VI" reform.  Thanks for the implicit vote of confidence.--G-Dett 22:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Of course, one should have at least 50,000 edits to the encyclopedia and be an admin before one can spend her time abusing editors on talk pages... :-) —Ashley Y 21:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Of course. One should have 50,000 edits to the encyclopedia, be an admin, create four featured articles and numerous policies. Then one can spend her time abusing editors on talk pages. —Ashley Y 21:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I would have to say "yes." It is a political term, among other things. Cheers. Dino 21:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: There have been objections so you'll need to find a reliable source per WP:A. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You would say "yes", Ashley? That's a shock. In any event, I don't agree, others don't as well. So, it's controversial. In any event we're not going through this again, Ashley. First attribute your claim. If you can do that, then we'll discuss whether it is clear and self-evident, or controversial. Not another word until proper attribution of your claim. And none of the bad faith bogus attributions your tried to do before, as with Aaronovitch etc. Start quoting reliable sources. Jayjg (talk) 21:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial, it should not be put into the category. I'm wondering if there's consensus that it's self-evident and uncontroversial. At this point there isn't, of course, but perhaps other editors might care to comment? —Ashley Y 21:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It certainly needs RS attribution if it's not self-evident and uncontroversial. But does "political term" delegitimise the concept at all? —Ashley Y 01:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Completely arbitrary & capricious section break #4

message: By the way, I've restored Slim's revert of my modifications to the second paragraph. Slim, let's talk. "Old antisemitism" was "largely," but not entirely associated with the political right for the past 200-odd years; but its roots do indeed go far, far back into the mists of time, thousands of years in fact, before there were such concepts as a political "right" or "left." Is there any part of this statement that you find inaccurate? If so, please point it out. Thanks. Dino 21:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't change the lead without getting agreement on talk first. The sentence is a little odd. You'll need a source showing that classical antisemitim "has roots going back thousands of years," and the addition of "before the development of such concepts as a political 'left' and 'right'" is a clear example of OR, and kind of odd-sounding. Also, it doesn't really have anything to do with NAS. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I included a link to several sources in my recent comment, and I don't know why that link didn't survive your edit. Here it is again.  The earliest appears to be an ancient Greek reference to ancient Egyptian antisemitism (3rd century BC to be precise). The notion of a "left" and "right" in politics is only around 200 years old, and any student of political science would find it obvious that the concept of antisemitism predates "left and "right" (and politics) by a factor of about ten. The policy on WP:OR permits obvious inferences to be stated. Dino 21:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those references to ancient antisemitism are attributed in the text, and would have to be here too, and that's not appropriate for a lead about NAS. Also, WP:NOR doesn't permit inferences of the kind you want to make; you would definitely need a source. However, regardless of that, it's not about NAS so it's not appropriate for the lead. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: If not in the lead, where should it go? And does anyone else have an opinion about this? Dino 21:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead should probably be about what is unique about New antisemitism. For example, the Racial antisemitism lead doesn't mention that antisemitism of some sort (primarily religious antisemitism) dates back thousands of years. Jayjg (talk) 22:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Roots

message: :I do not think that "institutional racism" is a political neologism (at least not anymore).  New anti-Semitisim may have been a political neologism at one point, but it has now entered mainstream academic thought in the same way that "institutional racism" has.  Therefore, NAS is not a political neologism even if it once was one.  It was a political neologism that grew and developed into a fully formed sociological phenomenon similarly to how a fetus grows and develops into a fully formed human being.  --GHcool 21:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Institutional racism" was coined by the Black Panthers.  You're probably right that it's graduated by now from its "neologism" stage.  "This category is for terms that have entered political jargon since approximately 1980; their first use may be earlier, but their widespread use should not be," is what the category heading for "political neologisms" says.  Was "new antisemitism" in widespread use before 1980?  Should we do a Lexis-Nexis search?--G-Dett 21:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with that definition of political neologism.  1980 was 27 years ago.  I think we can all agree that a neologism must certainly have been coined less than 27 years ago.  I suggest 4-6 years would be more appropriate for making distinctions between political "neologisms" and political "terms." --GHcool 23:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: You want to change the definition of political neologism on :Category:Political neologisms?  From terms that came into common use 27 years to terms that came into use 4-6 years ago.  According to our article, "the term [NAS] has entered common usage to refer to what some writers describe as a wave of antisemitism that escalated, particularly in Western Europe, after the Second Intifada in 2000, the failure of the Oslo accords, and the September 11, 2001 attacks."  So with "political neologisms" redefined, would NAS no longer fit?--G-Dett 00:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I would like to change the definition of political neologism to 4-6 years.  Reasonable people can disagree about whether NAS is a political neologism or not.  I happen to believe it is not a neologism.  It has been 7 years since Arafat's rejection of the Camp David 2000 Summit and the beginning of the second Intifada.  --GHcool 00:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I just rewrote the category definition to say 2001 instead of 1980.  I did not do this "in order to prevent NAS from taking its natural place there" (NAS was coined roughly around that time).  I did it because it makes sense.  A 27 year old term cannot be a neologism.  --GHcool 21:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Completely arbitrary & capricious section break #5

message: OK, if that is true, how about this (changed text in italics):
:"New antisemitism is the concept of an international resurgence of attacks on Jewish symbols, as well as the acceptance of antisemitic beliefs and their expression in public discourse, relating to anti-Zionism." (plus refs)
—Ashley Y 00:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, because that's not what the sources say it is about. It's not all about anti-Zionism, it's about a resurgence of anti-Semitism, unusual alliances between the far left, the far right, and Islamists, and various other things. Jayjg (talk) 01:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It bears mentioning that this is not the sole definition of "NAS" favoured by opponents or proponents of the term.  CJCurrie 01:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Jayjg, can you tell us which sources say this?  I've looked through each of them and haven't found that material.  What it appears to come from is the piece by Jonathan Sacks, sourced first, in which he says "The new anti-Semitism is coming simultaneously from three different directions...."  Entirely missing from his piece, though, is any statement that this is the definition.  And in fact, what he later says is precisely that "What we are witnessing today is the second great mutation of anti-Semitism in modern times, from racial anti-Semitism to religious anti-Zionism (with the added premise that all Jews are Zionists)."  So can I ask which source states that the directions from where it comes is solely what defines "New Antisemitism" as used by all notable authors? Mackan79 04:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Entirely missing from [Sacks's] piece, though, is any statement that this is the definition." So what? Where does our lead use the word "definition"? SlimVirgin (talk) 05:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It states NAS is "the concept of...".  This presents it as a definition.  Also, though, see WP:Lead. "The first sentence in the lead section should be a concise definition of the topic unless that definition is implied by the title (such as 'History of …' and similar titles)."  This is my problem: couldn't we give a better concept of what NAS is up front?  My feeling is you don't really know until the third paragraph, and even then, the whole thing is muddled. Mackan79 15:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Completely arbitrary & capricious section break #6

message: I feel this article is too long and too repetitive. Several different people are quoted or paraphrased at length, making the same points over and over. 
Hypnopomp 22:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Too Long