Talk:New antisemitism/Archive 4

message: I just deleted the reference to the notorious anti semite Michael Neumann being Jewish, there is NO cite for that.Incorrect 14:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't he say he is in his article What is Antisemitism? ? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: He says it in multiple places, both online and in print (The Politics of Anti-Semitism, The Case against Israel)  Besides he looks Jewish and Neumann ain't exactly Fernandez in terms of names.  I don't even know why we are debating this.  There are plenty of citations and as far as I know no counter evidence at all Jbolden1517 17:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jbolden1517, please enlighten us: what does it mean to "look Jewish?" I'm sitting here laughing. I seem to recall that the Museum of the Diaspora once had an exhibit that showed different faces of people who are Jewish to highlight just how diverse the Jewish population is. --Leifern 14:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It boggles the mind that you have now twice claimed that Neumann is Jewish because he "looks Jewish". Jayjg (talk) 17:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Read back.  Did I actually say that?  What do you hope to accomplish by starting a flame war? Jbolden1517 17:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, the "looks Jewish and has a Jewish-sounding name" isn't particularly usable data to support documenting someone as Jewish. However, him saying he's Jewish should suffice.  --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, you twice said "he looks Jewish", including just above.  The fact that you provided other evidence is irrelevant to the fact that you considered his "looking Jewish" (and his "Jewish" name) to be corroborating evidence.  BTW, "Neumann" is German. Jayjg (talk) 18:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And that's and accurate description of what I said.  That there was a written record and his looks were corroborating evidence, which is different than what you said the first time.  OK now what was your point in phrasing this in a way likely to start a flame war?  What was the goal?  jbolden1517Talk 18:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why does his Jewishness have any place in the article? Pecher Talk 19:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyways someone like Neuman would have reason to say he is Jewish when he isn't.  And "looking Jewish" does not count as corroborating evidence, sorry. By that way, what do you mean by looking Jewish, because he has a mustache and wear glasses he is Jewish? What about the curly hair? he doesn't have that, I guess he can't be Jewish.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm unclear about the point of this discussion. Are we now expected to list the ethnicities of our sources? On this article, or on every article? All the sources, or only some of them? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I propose that we should list the ethnicities only of those sources when the Jewishness of the author can enhance the propaganda value of the author's anti-Jewish arguments. Pecher Talk 20:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I further propose that the ethnicities of editors on this page be declared if and only if their Jewishness enhances the view that the editor is part of a "cynical ploy" to protect Israel from criticism. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Neumann is Jewish . It's not disputed anywhere. More bio here. I don't think his Jewishness is relevant in this article.--Denis Diderot 12:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michael Neumann 

message: Is anyone interested in finding an experienced editor who understands the content policies to be an informal mediator? I could probably find one who would be impartial if people think that would be helpful. The mediation committee is very tied up so formal mediation is probably not available. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll look for someone then. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Informal mediation

message: Please work out your differences instead of edit warring. · Katefan0 (scribble)/poll 03:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: Thanks for pointing out WP:NPA. I wasn't aware of it and will reaffirm my resolve to edit WP rather than.... Back to the topic. Can anyone say why the following is not a useful beginning:
The meaning of the term New anti-Semitism is debated. Its meaning has changed since the first recorded use in 1902 in an Encyclopedia Britannica article.Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, pseudoscience definition, usage note: "1902 Encycl. Brit. XXV. 472/1 This was the pseudo-scientific note of the new anti-Semitism, the theory which differentiated it from the old religious Jew-hatred." At that time the term meant what some historians now call "modern anti-Semitism" (racial anti-Semitism, as opposed to pre-19th century anti-semitism which was mainly religious).
The term was revived in 1971 in the New York Times Magazine "The Socialism of Fools," The New York Times Magazine (January 3, 1971) and in 1974Foster, Arnold. The New Anti-Semitism. McGraw-Hill, 1974. . The revival of the term sparked debate because etc etc 
placed by Mccready 12:54, 28 April 2006
: I can.  You are getting into a great deal of complexity.  Why would the first sentence or two address the fact that "new anti-semitism" used to mean racial anti-semitism as opposed to religious anti-semitism?  Further I really question whether the term per say is debated.  I think the debate is centered more on:
:# does the phenomena  described the term "new-antisemitism" exist?
:# is the term deliberately biased and propagandistic?  That is the phenomena may exist but not be "anti-semtic".
:# Should the moral force of anti-semitism (attacks on a discriminated against jewish minority) be treated the same when addressing people in power.  In other words are Jews in Western Europe and America entitled to the same level of deference?  
:Those IMHO are the actual debates.  The meaning of the term is pretty clear cut: "attacks on Jews or Israel motivated at their core by denial of the legitimacy of Judaism of the Jewish nation."  So for example there are many on this board who are openly anti-zionists, that is they disagree that jews are a nation at all and thus attacks on legitimacy of the Jewish nation are justified.  But as far as I can tell they don't disagree they are denying that Jews are a nation they just don't think such opinions are "anti-semetic".  Just as anti-semitism has nothing to do with Semites "new anti-semitism" has very little to do with the racial anti-semitism.
::The meaning of the term "new anti-Semitism" is not what people debate. Reasonable people either accept some existing definition or propose a new one. The debate concerns the nature of the new anti-Semitism. The main controversy concerns the relationship between the new anti-Semitism and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I hope your reference to 1902 is meant to be some sort of joke. --Denis Diderot 19:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are you aware you are replying at the wrong level.  You are replying to me and the 1902 quote is from McReady.  Not really sure what your intent was.  And actually he was arguing the definition is vague (i.e does it include racial anti-semitism)?  jbolden1517Talk 20:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: I'd like to add a link to the "Organizations and forums whose stated aim is to fight anti-Semitism"
Ilka Schroder, a Christian German former member of the European parliament as part of the Green party has created an institute to fight new anti-semtiism.  The main page is http://www.ilka.org/ and some pages are available in English at http://www.ilka.org/index_en.html.
:Interesting. Thanks for posting it. We might want to mention her response to the EU report, if she's notable enough.  SlimVirgin (talk) 13:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because nobody else patrols the  category, it's a damn shame. Added your link Ashibaka tock 00:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks! jbolden1517Talk 10:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ilka Schroder

message: Ref 74 and 75 are the same. Could someone fix it when the fighting is over.... Kjaergaard 01:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simple typo 

message: I've managed to snag a copy of Tanguieff's book, which I'll be reading in the upcoming week.  The book itself is actually quite short, though unfortunately I'm busy with non-Wiki activities until Tuesday.
From what I can tell, it looks like another polemic.  Perhaps I'll be pleasantly surprised.  CJCurrie 01:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A note on sources 

message: 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)
thread_title: Changing the Subject bad parallel

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: "...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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Obfuscation over mediation

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Mediation 

message: Removed trolling by banned user  -- Malber (talk • contribs) 15:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete this farcical article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Original "socialist anti-Zionism" 

message: Do Moshe, Humus and Jay support renaming this article New anti-Semitism (epithet)? Homey 06:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I haven't got a side. --Coroebus 17:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of source, your completely neutral and unbias, how could I have forgotten.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I think Islamofascism (epithet) is fine too. Jayjg (talk) 22:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: I fixed a few as well. Jayjg (talk) 23:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Best to discuss this on the Islamofascism pages. --Coroebus 06:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming article