Talk:New antisemitism/Archive 12

message: I first raised objections to the "1949 Commentary article" paragraph on March 10.  Since then, three editors have responded on this page to indicate their objection to its removal.
*In response to my question as to why Armon restored the disputed paragraph, SlimVirgin wrote the following: "Because there's no consensus to remove it. Please leave it there and don't start another revert war to remove material other people have written that has been there for a long time."  She later added: "This is not a page that editors should be bold on, because it's too controversial, as it says at the top of this page. Such large changes, especially the deletion of long-standing material, has [sic] to be discussed in advance, and then only carried out if people agree. No response does not signal agreement. CJCurrie does this far too often and it causes trouble every time. He also only does it in areas where he feels the left is being criticized, which is tiresome and I wish it would stop."
*Humus sapiens wrote the following: "I think the USSR is important here. Even today, the rhetoric and the imagery used by the Left comes straight from the Soviet propaganda: anti-colonialism, anti-apartheid, anti-imperialist, etc. Let's keep in mind that what they shyly called "anti-Zionism" was a rallying cry throughout the Cold War. As you noted yourself, "Schwarz's article is only tangentially focused on the relationship between Zionism and anti-Semitism."
*Armon wrote the following: "Sorry, I reverted and was going to discuss here, but real life got in the way. It's fair comment that I should have explained myself. Basically it's the same reasons SV and Hummus gave, it's important historical context which, if anything, should be expanded IMO. I don't agree with your reasons to exclude Schwarz's article. If fact, in the quotes you presented he's clearly talking about "the Soviet disappointment over the composition of the new Jewish state" or "anti-Zionism" as a key pretext for Soviet antisemitism."
My responses:
*SlimVirgin's opposition to removing the paragraph appears to rest upon two planks: (i) the fact that it has been in the article for some time, and (ii) the fact that CJCurrie supports its removal.  She has not provided any defence of the paragraph itself.
*Humus sapiens's argument that "the imagery used by the Left comes straight from the Soviet propaganda: anti-colonialism, anti-apartheid, anti-imperialist, etc." is Original Research, as G-Dett has already noted.  While his belief that "the USSR is important here" may be heartfelt, he has not shown any evidence that Soviet anti-Zionism (or Soviet anti-Semitism) dating from 1949-52 is relevant to the modern concept of "new antisemitism".  I'm hesitant to comment on his statement, "As you noted yourself, Schwarz's article is only tangentially focused on the relationship between Zionism and anti-Semitism.", as I'm not entirely certain of what he's trying to argue.
*Armon's objection is based on a misreading of the source material.  Schwarz explictly argues that "Soviet anti-Zionism" and "the Soviet disappointment over the composition of the new Jewish state" is not central to Soviet anti-Semitism circa 1949.
No-one has yet presented a credible defense of the paragraph, although this hasn't stopped SlimVirgin and her allies from resisting all attempts to delete it.  I would suggest that if editors want the paragraph to be retained, they should be prepared to argue a more convincing case in its favour.  Alternately, if editors want to cite connections between Soviet anti-Zionism and "new antisemitism", they should be prepared to provide better sources.
From what I can tell, the only thing linking Solomon Schwarz's article to the modern concept of "new antisemitism" is that fact that the phrase "New Anti-Semitism" appears in the title.  This is not a particularly compelling connection.  The phrase itself is fairly generic, and has only taken on a particular meaning since 2000 (or 1973, if you want to trace it back to the first ADL book).  The fact that the words "New Anti-Semitism" appear in a 1949 article is not particularly relevant, and I rather doubt that any recent works promoting the term "new antisemitism" have made use of Schwarz's observations.
Schwarz's article is not focused on the Soviet Union's opposition to Zionism, and Schwarz himself was not prescient enough to foresee the "Doctor's Plot" three years later.  The article is about "popular" prejudice and institutional barriers to advancement, and its title refers to mutations in Soviet anti-Semitism from the 1920s and '30s.  It is not, as such, relevant to an encyclopedia article on the modern "new antisemitism" concept.  
Of course, it might be possible to retain the disputed paragraph if other editors are willing to acknowledge that the term "new anti-Semitism" has had different meanings in different historical contexts, and to restructure the article accordingly.  Past experience suggests that such an acknowledgement will not be forthcoming.  
If no-one can make a credible case for retaining the paragraph in the next day or so, then I can see no reason why it should not be removed.  CJCurrie 01:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This should be a fairly simple matter.  If there's a source connecting the 1949 Commentary article to the phenomenon of "New Antisemitism" as defined by our article, then we should cite that source.  If there isn't, it's OR and should be removed. Same with the mention of the "Doctors' Plot."--G-Dett 15:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Update

message: Hi Slim, geocites isn't appropriate is it? Also, frontpagemag.com is an attack site isn't it? --Tom 23:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's not an attack site. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't care about this link either way. I was concerned about the removal of Frontpage mag as an "attack site." SlimVirgin (talk) 00:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Well perhaps I was too brief in my edit summary but given the combination of (1) foreign language and (2) hosted on Geocities... I'm having difficulty seeing how that link qualifies under a combo of WP:EL and WP:RS.  00:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither hosting on geocities (convenience links are allowed) nor foreign language (also allowed) would disqualify it. However, those issues apart, I don't see it as particularly useful. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (e/c)Which falls under WP:EL. Essentially, does the link provide content in that foreign language that is more or less essential to the topic at hand and the same content can't be found in English? I think you're answering that question with your response Slim Virgin. Thanks.  00:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Netscott for your imput and help with that external link. Slim was telling me to read the WP:EL policy when in fact it seemed that she need the refresher course. Anyways,--Tom 01:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that it matters, but I didn't advise you to read WP:EL and it's not a policy. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Slim, which policies were you referring to here? And I see that WP:EL is a MOS or guideline? Is it me or is this place overly policy/guideline ridden. Anyways, no big deal, I have trying to remove external links lately that are "not appropriate" whatever that means :) Cheers, --Tom 01:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just so there's no misunderstanding about this. If other editors see that link as having compelling content that's essential to this topic and can't be found elsewhere in English then I'd certainly not have any problem seeing it come back. I say this because I must admit that I don't read Hebrew and made my editorial decision about this from the look of the site and what I percieved to be shortcomings about the link.  01:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: And it's not like there's a shortage of external links from this article... Ben Aveling 00:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External sites/further reading

message: Someone said that foreign language links should be removed.  That's overstating the case, though clearly English is strongly prefered.  I don't read Hebrew; to what extent are the articles at http://www.geocities.com/byemini/yemini.html a 'unique' contribution to the debate?  Regards, Ben Aveling 00:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't care about this link either way. I was concerned about the removal of Frontpage mag as an "attack site." SlimVirgin (talk) 00:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Well perhaps I was too brief in my edit summary but given the combination of (1) foreign language and (2) hosted on Geocities... I'm having difficulty seeing how that link qualifies under a combo of WP:EL and WP:RS.  00:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither hosting on geocities (convenience links are allowed) nor foreign language (also allowed) would disqualify it. However, those issues apart, I don't see it as particularly useful. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (e/c)Which falls under WP:EL. Essentially, does the link provide content in that foreign language that is more or less essential to the topic at hand and the same content can't be found in English? I think you're answering that question with your response Slim Virgin. Thanks.  00:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Netscott for your imput and help with that external link. Slim was telling me to read the WP:EL policy when in fact it seemed that she need the refresher course. Anyways,--Tom 01:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that it matters, but I didn't advise you to read WP:EL and it's not a policy. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Slim, which policies were you referring to here? And I see that WP:EL is a MOS or guideline? Is it me or is this place overly policy/guideline ridden. Anyways, no big deal, I have trying to remove external links lately that are "not appropriate" whatever that means :) Cheers, --Tom 01:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just so there's no misunderstanding about this. If other editors see that link as having compelling content that's essential to this topic and can't be found elsewhere in English then I'd certainly not have any problem seeing it come back. I say this because I must admit that I don't read Hebrew and made my editorial decision about this from the look of the site and what I percieved to be shortcomings about the link.  01:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: And it's not like there's a shortage of external links from this article... Ben Aveling 00:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:EL#Foreign-language_links|Foreign-language links]]

message: Mackan, please don't change the lead over objections. Just because people don't keep on responding to your many, many posts doesn't mean they agree. Your changes don't improve anything and you're removing sources. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about? There's been plenty of response and discussion of this issue. —Ashley Y 05:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did I say there hadn't been discussion, Ashley? SlimVirgin (talk) 05:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite. And that discussion has generated a rough consensus. —Ashley Y 06:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The issue has been discussed ad nauseum, as you know, for over a month, and achieved a clear concensus of a large number of editors on the talk page, at least 6 of whom directly participated in creating the new version.  Also, I did not remove any sources, but made sure to retain them, and simply moved one in accordance with the new version.  Is this ok then?  Also, am I wrong to think that if you disagreed with the change, that perhaps you could have spoken up over the last month while we were discussing it? Mackan79 05:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It depends on which version of the lead you're talking about :-)  Seriously, we should be able to come up with something reasonable, and then maybe structure the rest of the article in a reasonable way. I would recommend that we keep proposing new leads here or on a separate page and critique it earnestly with each other. But I want to state for the record that it's NPOV to say that Israel has defense needs, just like Palestinians have humanitarian and political needs and rights. This could devolve into the depths of pettiness unless we're willing to be serious about it. --Leifern 16:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I think we're all doing a little mixing of the two articles here :) Revise comment for New Antisemitism (I think you're still in Talk:Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid mode)?  The question related to whether we should use the new formulation that is clearer about the connection between NAS and anti-Zionism.  I won't repeat since I know you've been following the discussion. Mackan79 17:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead

message: Based on CJCurrie's suggestion above in response to Crum375, is there an interest in taking this page to formal mediation?  Personally, I'm open to either route: that, or unprotecting the page and continuing to try to hash things out for the time being.  Many of these issues are smaller, which may make mediation difficult.  There's also a serious breakdown in commmunication which needs to be addressed one way or another, though.  Perhaps to move this along people could weigh in.  Mackan79 12:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm open to either as well.  I think until we've heard from Slim, Jay, et al it will be difficult to know how to proceed.--G-Dett 15:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I do not know what's customary here, but their lack of interest with regards to the mediation by Mel Etitis was quite striking. I do not understand why, and I won't speculate. I think a formal mediation may be the only way to stop this low intensity edit-warring and communications break down that is going on now. pertn 09:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Formal Mediation

message: This article appears to of been in a large edit war before the page was fully protected, does this page need to be put on hold to work it out for a week, or is this problem going to be proceeding for quite awhile in mediation? It might be better to just wait until the article is at least more or less how most people want it rather than have it be nominated as a GA, since it may change greatly if there's an edit war or mediation going on. Homestarmy 22:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It won't change greatly, Homestarmy; the points in dispute are fairly limited. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Oh dear...(GA nom)

message: As a reader (and former active editor of this page) who is coming to this article with fresh eyes, I find the section "Arguments for and against the concept" distracting.  The average reader wants a quick, general overview.  Split articles allow for extended analysis and detail.  I don't know if this has been discussed before, but moving the arguments section to the end would allow the general reader to put one foot in and test the waters, before wading in up to their neck. —Viriditas | Talk 07:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That section is the substance of the article. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a good example of what happens when the writer forgets about the reader.  The lead describes the three political directions where the New antisemitism originates: the left, the far-right, and Islamism.  And yet, those sections are buried at the bottom of the article, while the arguments (really just a criticism section) appear after the history section. The arguments section should be merged into political directions, and the history of the term should appear below it. Criticism should split out into its own section, at the end. I don't expect a single editor on this page to agree with me, due to the entrenched warfare I've seen for the last year. I'm just letting you folks know that you are alienating the readers with the current layout.  But hey, keep writing for yourselves, since the audience no longer matters.  After all, it isn't like this is an encyclopedia or anything... —Viriditas | Talk 06:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The arguments aren't a criticism section. The article has been written without a criticism section because pro and anti is too simplistic (and criticism sections are generally not a good idea anyway), so the different scholarly opinions have simply been described. Some are clearly pro, some clearly anti, some more nuanced. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current layout consists of sections that do not unify the concepts as a whole.  Keeping the structure simple is essential, and it is necessary for the reader to understand the concept.  The arguments section is both an overview and a criticism section. For example, the section, "A new phenomenon" presents a selective description of the concept that should be merged with the third and fourth wave sections.  There is no need to describe them as "arguments for", the concept is named, and the article is supposed to represent it, so describing it as such is redundant.  If I visit an article about racism, I expect to read about racism, not "arguments for the proposal of racism".  The article is supposed to represent the subject without holding hands.  Arguments for the concept should be incorporated into the body of the article, namely political directions: The far right and Islamism, and The left and anti-Zionism  This is obvious: "The third wave" section concerns Bernard Lewis and his perspective of the new antisemitism as an ideological form, in contrast to the previous forms  based on religion and racism. "The fourth wave since 1945" section is about the history of the concept and Bauer's concern with Islamism.  Arguments against the new antisemitism criticize the concept: "A new phenomenon, but not antisemitism" section is a criticism by Klug and Lerner.  The section, "The Klug/Wistrich correspondence" is both a criticism by Klug and a response to Klug's criticism by Wistrich, who   addresses the political directions of the far right and Islamism. Surely, you can see the relationships between this and other sections. "Criticism of Israel is not necessarily antisemitism" is a crticism of the concept of new antisemitism by Earl Raab.  The section "A contradictory political ploy" is a criticism by Norman Finkelstein.  If you don't like criticism sections, then at least consider merging the arguments into a new format, that guides the reader from the general to the specific, or, from the specific to the general. Right now, the article is a mess, with connected ideas appearing all over the place.  From what I've seen, "Arguments" sections are even worse than criticism sections, neglecting the best interest of the reader in favor of editorial convenience.  We are not writing for editors. —Viriditas | Talk 05:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we were writing this for a journal, I'd agree with you. I also don't go to an article about racism to read "arguments for and against." But this is Wikipedia, and there are people who argue that the phenomenon does not exist. Therefore, the best way to present the various sides is simply to say which scholar has made which argument, and in order to guide the reader as to who is roughly for and who is roughly opposed, we did arguments for and against. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving "arguments" to the end  of the article 

message: Should we really trust this source for the picture that is given such a prominent place in the article? To me it seems that this may very well be some kind of propaganda outlet or whatever. In my eyes it undermines the credibility of the article to use anonymous sources like this. See: Zombietime . What do you think? Should we replace it as soon as  the protection is lifted?pertn 12:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We've been over that picture at length, many, many times. The picture is an ideal demonstration of the argument regarding this topic, the creator is known, the source is reliable, and permission to use it has been obtained. This is the ideal picture to use. Jayjg (talk) 12:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jayjg wrote: " This is the ideal picture to use. " and I am not surprised. It is the ideal picture for underlining your POV and it is from source that probably shares your views. I think dubious propaganda sources like this could be used, but then one should mention the quality of it in the accompanying text. Please review WP:NPOV pertn 13:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That picture is not unrepresentative of similar posters at similar left-wing demonstrations.  Where's the POV problem?  If you have photos of left-wing demonstrators remonstrating with those who equate Stars of David with swastikas, you could post that, but none exist. -- TedFrank 13:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Pertn, please comment on articles, not on editors. There is no question about the veracity of the poster itself; the artist is known, and has made many similar posters, along with this one. The picture itself has been interpreted in multiple ways; some see it as antisemitic, others as clearly anti-Zionist, not antisemitic. The images touch on many of the themes discussed in the article. That is why it is an ideal picture to demonstrate the article. As for your idea about "mentioning the quality of it in the accompanying text", please review WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Jayjg (talk) 13:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "mentioning the quality of it in the accompanying text" Agreed. A bit clumsy wording on my side there. I was merely thinking that the reader should be warned in some way that this source may not be reliable. A link to the WP article about zombietime, like proposed by TedFrank below here, is about what I had in mind. pertn 13:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The source is completely reliable. It's a photograph and it's been discussed by secondary sources. Enough. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think the reliability of the source is relevant here, because it's a real photograph from a real event which has also been documented by other sources (which simply did not happen to take this particular picture). The image is also clearly relevant to the article. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 11:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Will do, Ted, thanks. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Zombietime

message: The picture caption's outside link to zombietime.com should be replaced with a wikilink to zombietime. TedFrank 13:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Will do, Ted, thanks. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: collateral issue

message: http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2007/03/12/atzmons_triumph.php Zeq 14:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  shades of antisemitism 

message: Article from The Jerusalem Post: "There were 935 reported incidents of anti-Semitism in Canada in 2006 - representing a 12.8 percent rise from the previous year, a four-fold increase over the past 10 years and an all-time high since counting began - according to figures released by the League for Human Rights of B'nai B'rith Canada."
:Article continued here.  --172.146.164.61 22:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Anti-Semitic activities in Canada have risen to their highest level in 25 years, according to a new report"..."Nearly half of the reported events occurred in Toronto, which is home to nearly half of Canada's 375,000 Jews. Another 25 percent occurred in Montreal, but there were incidents in almost every Canadian region."
--172.150.110.6 16:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article: "Canadian anti-Semitism at an all-time high" 

message: Stalin's "anti-Rootless-Cosmopolitan policy" was thinly veiled to the degree of ostentatiously avoiding using the actual word "Jew" (something which fooled nobody at the time), but in other respects it was in fact a precursor of modern 
New Antisemitism in certain respects -- such as being a critique of modern Jewish social life and political activities from an ostensibly "left-wing" non-religious purely political point of view, without reference to race or overtly religious criticism.  It certainly foreshadowed (indirectly) the Soviet-Arab-Muslim alliance in the United Nations which spearheaded Resolution 3379. -- AnonMoos 04:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As has been pointed, the work on New Antisemitism, both scholarly and journalistic, is substantial.  Does any of it talk about this foreshadowing?  Does any of it point to this Soviet phenomenon as a precursor?--G-Dett 12:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stalin

message: Based on the lack of stability the article shows, including a recent lock due to edit warring, I am going to have to fail the GA nomination for now:  Please make the improvements I noted above, hammer out your differences, and once a stable verison has been established, please feel free to renominate.  If you have any questions, please see me at my talk page.  --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Failed: Stability issues

message: ARTICLE: "ADL Decries Anti-Semitic Vandalism of Alderman's Office"
:"The incident comes one week after the release of ADL's 2006 Audit of Anti-Semitic Incidents, which showed that anti-Semitic incidents in Illinois nearly doubled last year." -- "We are very concerned about the increasing willingness of some in our community to engage in anti-Semitic harassment and vandalism, as shown in the near doubling of such incidents in Illinois last year."
--172.150.110.6 16:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "March 14, 2007 ... Anti-Semitic incidents in Illinois nearly doubled in 2006 but declined nationally for a second consecutive year, according to newly issues statistics from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which tracks incidents against Jewish individuals, synagogues and community institutions."
--172.150.110.6 16:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Using the numbers from this article, the 2006 per capita incidence of "anti-semitic incidents" in Illinois is lower than the national average.  I don't think that can be characterized as "rampant."
76.29.2.23 04:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rampant Antisemitism in [[Illinois]]? 

message: *"Anti-Semitic Incidents in U.S. Decline in 2006, Despite Year Marked By Violent Attacks"
"March 14, 2007 … Anti-Semitic incidents in the United States declined for the second consecutive year in 2006, according to newly issued statistics from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which tracks incidents against Jewish individuals, synagogues and community institutions.  
The League's annual Audit of Anti-Semitic Incidents, issued today, counted a total of 1,554 anti-Semitic incidents across the United States in 2006, representing a 12 percent decline from 1,757 reported in 2005."
:So, the consensus (according to the ADL) seems to be that antisemitic incidents are DOWN in the U.S. (except in Illionis and a few other places), but UP just about everywhere else in the world.  This just doesn't seem right...but I suppose that we have to take the ADL's word for it.
::Makes perfect sense to me.  Since 9-11 and especially the invasion of Iraq, US citizens have been bombarded with pro-Israeli propaganda.  The rest of the world sees US military operations for what they really are: a war for oil and a war for Israel.
--172.150.110.6 16:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Anti-Semitic Incidents in U.S. Decline in 2006..." 

message: I have added the tag for now, as it seems to me that one side is insisting on it. I personally think it is ugly, and along with the protection status represents a failure to find the correct middle ground. Please try to work out your differences ASAP and reach a mutually acceptable version, realizing that in a contentious situation no one is going to be totally happy, but 'grudging acceptance' should be possible. Crum375 12:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please remove the tag immediately. Either this page is protected or it isn't. --Leifern 12:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll remove it if anyone can show me where it is against policy to indicate the disputed status while the page is protected. Alternatively, I will gladly yield this page to any other admin who wants to take over. Crum375 15:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's protected due to a content dispute.  I can't see why acknowledging the existence of a dispute would case trouble.  CJCurrie 15:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that if a page is protected, it's frozen at a (hopefully) arbitrary state to let things cool down, as if it were quarantined. The dispute can be over one intractable detail, or the existence of the article. The totally disputed tag passes judgment on the nature of the dispute and poisons the well for readers who are interested in the topic. It seems pretty self-evident to me that slapping a tag like this on it amounts to weighing in on the content dispute itself and is therefore in violation of policy on these matters.  --Leifern 16:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with CJCurrie here. I don't see how indicating that there is a dispute among editors, which is clearly an undisputed fact, passes judgment on the article's content. And as I noted above, I will be happy to let another admin rule on this and reverse me, if s/he wants to take over monitoring this page. Crum375 16:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: CJCurrie, you may have noticed, has an interest in how this article is presented. It comes across clearly from the fact that it's locked that it's controversial. --Leifern 20:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point isn't that it's controversial, but that material is disputed.  This is for readers, also, who won't know the article is locked or why.  You may disagree, but I think this was exactly how it's supposed to happen, if there's a dispute when the page gets locked down, particularly for an extended period: editors can petition the locking admin to put up a banner noting the content dispute.  Please recognize that this is a compromise, between locking down a version that favors certain editors, but then acknowledging the dispute for the others.  I don't think anybody is satisfied with the current situation.  Mackan79 20:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Totally disputed tag 

message: #The lead, per discussion here.
#The history section and issues of original research, including discussions of Flannery here and 1949 Commentary article here.
#The "Responses" section and issues of attribution/NPOV, with discussions at various times (possibly mostly resolved).
Comments welcome below. Mackan79 22:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand 2; one set of editors feels the material should be included, a second set feels it should not. I'm not sure that there is much debate about the lead, though; what do you feel the two options are? Also, can you be more specific about 3 please? Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 22:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Edit conflict with CJ.)  If we can resolve the lead without mediation, that would be great.  Regarding 2, I think the issue is more complex (or at least that the solution will need to be), but I think you're right that's the main issue.  As to 3, I imagine that's not something we'll want to mediate, but I mentioned it simply because it's one issue that has been raised previously (issues with that section generally).  If we're leaving certain issues out of the mediation, though, that might be worth noting as well. Seeing CJ's comment now, I think those are also issues relating to #3 we might address. Mackan79 22:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Regarding 3). I think the responses section needs to be altered. -It is quite unclear what the responses are really are responses to. If they are responses to the new concept, I belive a key element here would be critzism and groups like independent jewish voices. The way it is structured now, it seems that general empirical evidence of contemporary antisemitism and reactions to this is included as "evidence" of NAS in the responses section, even though there is hardly any evidence or reason to attribute the instances to NAS. (For instance: statistics of antisemitic attacks, where the perpetrator is not known. Isn't the change of typical perpetrator one of the key issues here?)   Thus, to include the material in this way is really OR, since one uses material that is not explicitly about NAS and interprets it as evidence or "responses" to NAS. Wheter it is responses to the concept or the phenomenon noone really knows, it seems. pertn 08:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation Issues

message: Having thought about this issue some more, I believe that a better approach is to use the 'protected' template, rather than the 'totally disputed' (TD) one. This is because I can see how one could construe the TD template to imply that WP itself is saying that there are neutrality and/or sourcing issues with the entry, whereas WP prefers to take no position in this dispute. By using the 'protected' template, we are simply telling the reader that article is protected due to ongoing disputes among editors, and that the protection is not an endorsement of the protected version. It seems to me that this is a much better and more neutral way to proceed as long as  the entry is protected, and in my opinion it clearly conveys the present status in a way that doesn't favor any side. As always, any other admin can overrule me on this. Crum375 02:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The message of the banner is that there's a neutrality dispute, though, not that the article has been determined by concensus to be biased. In fact, I think this is exactly the situation where such a banner is intended.  I'm generally fine as long as mediation moves forward, but I think at least the "NPOV" banner is justified, which simply says, "The neutrality of this article is disputed."  If two active editors request it, is that not sufficient?  I'm not sure where else the banner would be used. Mackan79 04:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My concern is that in principle, every single contentious entry on WP could get a neutrality template, because you'd always find a couple of editors on one side who dislike the current compromise version. So obviously we can't just use the disputed neutrality by some editors as a sole criterion for the neutrality template's inclusion. In this case, since the entry is frozen, I now feel that WP's endorsing the neutrality dispute template would be improper, while just stating that there is an edit dispute and the entry is protected until it gets resolved, and that protection does not endorse the protected version, is an accurate way to describe the current situation. Crum375 13:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changed template to 'protected' 

message: I agree that if CJ and Mackan will be representing our "side," then the list of mediated issues needs to be restricted.  Otherwise their task will become impossible to perform and inevitably thankless.  In light of the depth and frequency of disputes, on the other hand, the idea of comprehensive mediation has been proposed several times.  It's an attractive idea in some ways but would only make sense if all who wished to were allowed to participate.
The immediate issues that have produced impasse are the "History" section, the IJV, and the lead.  Jay is right that significant progress has been made on the lead.  Perhaps that won't require mediation.  In the end, I would want a lead that makes very clear at the outset the centrality of the concept of "disproportionate" political criticism of Israel to the definition of NAS, as that appears to be our default definition determining what material is properly relevant to the article.   
I have several other issues, major and minor, with the article in its current form.  I'm not saying any of them should be added to the list of issues for mediation.  I just want to give a sense of what I'm going to press for when the article reopens; if these resonate with other editors, they may shape the mediation process even if they aren't themselves foregrounded.
1.  Three substantial paragraphs on research by Chip Berlet (who never once mentions "new antisemitism") in the "History" section strikes me as much too much.  I thank Jay for correcting me as to who the founder of Political Research Associates is, but I still don't see how what they do differs from DailyKos, Znet, or any other kind of self-published, largely web-based research-activism.  I know that some of their work (not the stuff we're citing) has been published by the same outfit that publishes Chomsky's political writings (South End Press), but the majority of it seems to be posted on PRA's website, sent out in newsletters, etc.  Can someone provide a measure or objective indication of their stature and influence?  Are Berlet's findings cited by or incorporated into any of the work done by experts on NAS?  At the very least, it seems to me that Berlet's arguments (that concrete attempts by right-wing extremist groups to reach out to the left in the 1990s have resulted in a shared political vocabulary) are too idiosyncratic to be included in the "History" section, especially if none of the scholars of NAS are citing them.  If self-published investigative reporting is not picked up on, referred to, or made use of by any major authorities on a given topic, then I wonder why it should figure so centrally and, as it were, uncontroversially, in a Wikipedia article on that topic.  If we are going to insist nevertheless on keeping the paragraphs on Berlet in their entirety (all three of them), perhaps they'd find a more natural home in the "political directions" section.
2. Jay and others have stressed that they want the best authorities cited for this article, meaning scholars and other experts wherever possible.  A very reasonable-sounding proposition.  The result of this logic, however, is that we downplay the very writers that have done the most to codify the term "new antisemitism": Phyllis Chesler, Abraham Foxman, Alan Dershowitz, et al.  Whatever their faults, these writers have given the term NAS its currency, not only among laymen but among the authorities that we do quote.  It's very odd to me, for example, that our section on "arguments for and against the concept" begins with U Penn professor Jack Fischel – not, however, contributing his own research to the topic but rather reviewing a "spate of books" by none other than Chesler, Foxman, and Dershowitz.  It sometimes seems like the net effect of going the long way around the popular (and perhaps somewhat demagogic) writers, striving to quote university professors in relevant areas (while neglecting to mention that these scholars are themselves reviewing or discussing the concepts of the popular writers we largely ignore), together with the aforementioned original-research-upholstery padding out the furnishings of our "history" section, is to artificially shore up and burnish the scholarly and historical pedigree of what seems to be in many – admittedly not all – ways a popular, journalistic, and contemporary concept.
3. At the same time that we're throwing academic robes over everything, we seem to be surreptitiously indulging a kind of core sensationalism.  So that we quote Mark Strauss writing, after all, in a serious and very well-respected journal (Foreign Policy), but instead of summarizing the interesting and subtle argument he makes about the role of globalization in creating the conditions for the "new antisemitism" in the 1990s, we quote the following: "the [NAS] is the medieval image of the 'Christ-killing' Jew resurrected on the editorial pages of cosmopolitan European newspapers. It is the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement refusing to put the Star of David on their ambulances ... It is neo-Nazis donning checkered Palestinian kaffiyehs and Palestinians lining up to buy copies of Mein Kampf."  This line is a throwaway.  It's an establishing shot, a rhetorically colorful lead-in.  It has nothing to do with his argument.  There is no point – no point at all – in our searching out the best authorities, scholars, etc. etc. for our article if we're just going to mine their work for nuggets of pamphlet-ready rhetoric.
4. The structure of the article might be worth reconsidering.  The four principle sections (history, arguments pro/con, political directions, and responses) make sense in the abstract; in practice they encourage bloat and create not so much a readable article as a kind of indexed system of cross-references, where the same material is revisited again and again and looked at through different lenses.  The British All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry, for example, is discussed in detail in four different sections.  There seem to be endless subdivisions, and some of these are very confusing.  For example, the "arguments for and against" section includes two subsections which would appear to any normal reader to form a chronological sequence: "The Third Wave" and "The Fourth Wave since 1945."  But these "waves" are not sequential, and in fact are extracted from historical timelines having nothing at all to do with one another.  Lewis's waves begin with the advent of Christianity, and each spans epochs of several centuries.  Bauer's waves begin after World War II, and last anywhere from 5 to 14 years.  Lewis, in other words, is talking about evolutions through the millenia, the history of antisemitism in its (metaphorical) geological time; Bauer on the other hand is talking about a set of shifts hinging on current events.  Why do we present these two systems of historical scale in such copious detail?  Why do we throw the reader so deep in the weeds, and confuse him further by foregrounding an inconsequential coincidence – that  both Bauer and Lewis use the metaphor of "waves"?  Surely this material could be radically collapsed, perhaps into a revamped and cleaned-up history section; we could tell the reader that some scholarship of NAS focuses on its roots in centuries of classical antisemitism, while other work tends to anchor the phenomenon in contemporary history; we then briefly cite Lewis and Bauer, and give a couple of good quotes or examples.
Speaking of streamlining, I don't see a compelling reason for separate sections on "Criticism of Israel is not necessarily antisemitism" and "A contradictory political ploy."  The second argument (largely associated with Finkelstein) is simply a stronger version and more provocative extrapolation of the first argument.
Those are the major directions I'd like to see further editing of the article take.  What follows are some minor issues of the sort that we should be in theory (but aren't always in fact) easy to resolve without weeks spent in the trenches of bitter edit wars.  
a. This sentence – "That there has been a resurgence of antisemitic attacks and attitudes is accepted by most opponents of the concept of new antisemitism" – is sourced, bizarrely, to Norman Finkelstein, who doesn't believe it. The footnote opens by stating explicitly that Finkelstein doesn't believe it.  It's not entirely clear what's going on here, but it looks like the whole lengthy footnote is engineered for the purposes of making Finkelstein look foolish, by quoting him saying something about Laqueur's work that Laqueur himself then seems to contradict.  But what on earth is this elaborate OR mousetrap set-piece doing masquerading as a footnote supporting a statement it in fact contradicts?
b. The section on "the left and anti-Zionism" includes the following: "The Sunday Times reported in August 2006 that "[w]omen pushing their children in buggies bearing the familiar symbol of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament marched last weekend alongside banners proclaiming 'We are all Hezbollah now' and Muslim extremists chanting 'Oh Jew, the army of Muhammad will return'."   This is quoted from an article about various feminists' disillusionment with the antiwar movement; they're appalled by the latter's alleged alliance with Islamist groups – because of these groups' attitudes towards women, not their attitude towards Jews, which isn't even discussed.  The "Oh Jew" quoted from a marcher's slogan is the only allusion to antisemitism in the entire article, and it seems to be there because it's an arresting detail and adds memorable color to the piece.  Perhaps this makes it over the bar of WP:NOR, I don't know.  I don't like to shape article content around such technicalities, and I'm not eager to remove this.  But it does seem suggestive of what many here perceive as a troubling double standard, where something like the IJV debate is ruled out of relevance, on technical grounds that make no sense to many, but material that touches ever so fleetingly on the topic at hand is included – provided, that is, that it offers support (in this case glancing and anecdotal support) for the NAS thesis rather than a critique of it.--G-Dett 17:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a messy topic, because it tends to conflate a whole host of issues that are each complicated on their own, e.g., the rhetoric of left-wing radicals; prime forces within the Arab world that take many different forms; and the entry of the right wing in common cause with others against Israel. But at the risk of being accused of reductionism, it seems to me that this article is about a couple of key questions: is the apparent resurgence in antisemitic incidents around the world sufficiently distinct from prior such incidents to label it "new?" If so, why, and why does it matter? What is the evidence that criticism/condemnation of Israel is either a pretext for antisemitic views or encourages them? I don't think we need to cite every single source for one view or another on this, merely enough to illustrate their points and show the breadth of views. --Leifern 19:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you Leifern, except I'd substitute "is motivated by them" for "encourages them" in your second question.  I'd also stress that a messy topic shouldn't mean a messy article (we don't have an article on the mimetic fallacy but  we should).  What do you think of my substantive proposals?--G-Dett 19:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm only able to drop in briefly today to this article, sorry. G-Dett's summary is excellent to my mind, and the article should go with all his suggestions, at least until the point at which further disagreements surface. I also agree with Leifern's point. Could I suggest again that the History of antisemitism article would be a good place for recounting the recent history of antisemitism (as opposed to the history of the concept of (new/old antisemitism)? Also, I may have said this before, see Homosexual agenda for an example of a contentious concept given a relatively straightforward NPOV treatment. I think I am on one "side" in the mediation and would be very happy for either G-Dett or C.J. to represent that side, or Aminz if neither of them have the time. Itsmejudith 20:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  G-Dett's suggestions for mediation and/or general future editing of the article 

message: Based on the comments above, it seems clear we have a lot of issues here that could be mediated, but also a practical limitation on what four editors can accomplish.  Based on various comments, I'd offer the following proposal:
:1.) Deciding up front on how to address the lead.  A proposal was discussed at some length earlier here, with a reduced version implemented here, as follows:
::New antisemitism is the concept of a new 21st-century form of antisemitism emanating simultaneously from the political left, far-right, and Islamism, and tending to manifest iteslf as opposition to Zionism and the State of Israel. [1] The term 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. [2][3]
::Proponents of the concept argue that anti-Zionism, anti-Americanism, anti-globalization, third worldism, and opposition to the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish homeland may be coupled with antisemitism or may constitute disguised antisemitism. [2][3] Critics of the concept argue that it serves to equate legitimate criticism of Israel with antisemitism, and that it is used to silence debate. [5][6]
:The question here seems largely to Slim: would we be able to settle this up front?  If so, it could be scratched from the mediation.  I should say this proposal falls rather far short of Aminz' above stressing the relationship of NAS with anti-Zionism (something others and I also agree is an important part of the concept), but perhaps would be acceptable by leaving the details to later in the article.
:2.) Reaching an agreement, either with a mediator or through self-mediation, on how to deal with the history section and issues of OR, including discussions of Flannery here and 1949 Commentary article here.
:3.) Agreeing to mediate or agreeing to defer on issues of what to include and how to structure the "Responses Section."  Discussions here included whether the section should be restructured, as well as whether to include certain materials, such as the launch of International Jewish Voices, and the debate over the "Progressive Jewish Thought and the New Antisemitism" paper.  Our discussion on much of this is found here.
Beyond that, my concern is that the issues have probably not been hashed out enough for us to effectively mediate.  My inclination, as stated above, is that we would be better off deferring on those issues, and agreeing to engage them as they come up.  In doing so, we would simply recognize the rather narrow purpose of this mediation, to try to resolve a couple of issues which have really plagued the page for some time, and hopefully to get things back on track for future discussion.  This is simply to get the ball rolling, though; comments on any of this, including the substantive proposal in point 1., are welcome below. Mackan79 19:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mackan79

message: :I'd have to agree, that this is the place to start. It seems that people are trying to use the mediation to discuss every single issue they can think of under the sun; if we go down that route, mediation will be endless and impossible. Let's deal with the top issues first, the ones which have had the most discussion and debate. After that is worked out, we can possibly think of other areas of discussion. However, regarding the lead you've listed, the proposed new version was as follows:
:    New antisemitism is the concept of a new 21st-century form of antisemitism emanating simultaneously from the left, the far right, and radical Islam, and tending to manifest itself as opposition to Zionism and the State of Israel. The term 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. [2][3]
:The concept generally posits that an international resurgence of attacks on Jewish symbols, an increased acceptance of antisemitic beliefs in public discourse, and vilification of Israel by various individuals and world bodies, together constitute a single phenomenon, and an evolution in the appearance of antisemitic beliefs.
:Proponents of the concept argue that anti-Zionism, anti-Americanism, anti-globalization, third worldism, and demonization of Israel or double standards applied to its conduct may be linked to antisemitism, or constitute disguised antisemitism. [2][3] Critics of the concept argue that it trivializes the meaning of antisemitism, defines legitimate criticism of Israel too narrowly and demonization too broadly, and exploits antisemitism in order to silence debate. 
:--Jayjg (talk) 00:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What was wrong with that? Looks good to me, and accurately describes the concept as well as the criticism. <<-armon->> 00:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: People didn't like the fact that it accurately represented the views of the proponents of the concept, particularly their view that it involved demonization of Israel and double standards towards it. They wanted proponents to make a much milder argument which they didn't actually make. Jayjg (talk) 00:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jayjg

message: ::::I'm not entirely certain what Jayjg is referring to in his previous edit.  I've argued for more than a year that the introduction should (i) accurately define the concept of "new antisemitism", (ii) accurately convey the views of its proponents, and (iii) accurately convey the views of its critics.  The current proposals represent a marked improvement on these fronts, and should generally be acceptable to most parties involved in these discussions.  
::::That said, I still have two concerns to raise.
::::(i)  I have some doubts about the accuracy of the following statement:
:::::The concept generally posits that an international resurgence of attacks on Jewish symbols, an increased acceptance of antisemitic beliefs in public discourse, and vilification of Israel by various individuals and world bodies, together constitute a single phenomenon, and an evolution in the appearance of antisemitic beliefs.
::::I am not certain that all NAS-proponents have defined the term in precisely this manner.  While it's true that some have used the term to designate "various developments which together constitute a single phenomenon", there are also others who have used it more narrowly, usually with specific reference to Israel.
::::I've argued in the past that the introduction should indicate that the term has been used in different ways by different authors.  My concern with Jayjg's wording is that it may define the term too narrowly, and promote one specific interpretation of the concept as the "correct" one.
::::As I have little interest in unnecessarily prolonging this discussion, I'd like to make the following request: could contributors please indicate precisely how specific proponents of the "new antisemitism" concept have defined the term?  If we're able to focus our attention on what the sources actually say, we shouldn't have too much difficulty in resolving this matter once and for all.
::::(ii)  I'd like to propose that the final sentence be adjusted to read as follows: "Critics of the concept argue that it trivializes the meaning of antisemitism, defines legitimate criticism of Israel too narrowly and demonization too broadly, conflates anti-Zionism with antisemitism, and exploits antisemitism in order to silence debate."
::::Reason: Some proponents of the NAS-concept have argued that some ideological positions toward Israel (binationalism, for instance) are inherently antisemitic.  Many opponents have disagreed with this contention.  We should clarify this matter in the introduction.  CJCurrie 02:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your proposal for a final sentence looks like an accurate summary of the main arguments of critics. Jayjg (talk) 19:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should I assume this matter is resolved, then?  CJCurrie 20:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is with me. Jayjg (talk) 22:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: CJCurrie

message: It's great to see this progress on the lead.  Jay and CJ raise important points, both about the same sentence.  There was indeed debate about the terminology, especially "vilification"/"demonization."  Jay, who is fond of the word "strawman," claims that his editorial opponents on this page wish NAS's proponents had made their case in milder terms, and are taking the liberty of pretending they did.  As everyone who followed that debate knows, the NPOV issues raised had more to do with phraseology than word choice.  The formulation "Proponents argue that a, b, and c constitute a single phenomenon, X," strongly suggests that a, b, and c exist by common consensus, that only their convergence in X is disputed (Proponents argue that unicorns constitute a subspecies of Equus caballus, etc.). No one ever – pace Jayjg – objected to attributing words like "demonization" and "vilification" to NAS's proponents; what we objected to was naturalizing and assimilating that vocabulary.  Which is why we ensured that the final sentence, in summing up the critics' view, made clear that they dispute the accuracy of words like "demonization" as they're used by proponents.
CJ raises a different objection to that sentence.  As I understand it, the problem is that the sentence implies that NAS-proponents concern themselves equally with a, b, and c (international resurgence of attacks on Jewish symbols, an increased acceptance of antisemitic beliefs in public discourse, and vilification of Israel by various individuals and world bodies), whereas many if not most are in fact focused on the third of these things.
I see the point of this; "vilification" of Israel is indeed the central theme in the discourse of NAS, and it is obviously the theme that has guided editors in their collation of material for this article (recall the bitter debate about the EUMC definition).  But even those NAS-proponents who are singularly focused on the subject of vilification of Israel do link it to items a and b (attacks on Jewish symbols, antisemitism tolerated and condoned in public discourse); in fact this linkage is what makes it possible to define as "vilification" the kind of criticism they're talking about.  
The following sentence would answer to both of the objections above, while preserving all the content of the sentence as it currently stands:
The concept generally posits that much of what purports to be criticism of Israel by various individuals and world bodies is in fact tantamount to demonization, and that together with an international resurgence of attacks on Jewish symbols and an increased acceptance of antisemitic beliefs in public discourse, this demonization represents an evolution in the appearance of antisemitic beliefs.
Could something like this work?--G-Dett 14:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Might I briefly suggest taking out "of what purports to be"?  It may not be necessary.  Other than that, I'll have to look in more detail. Mackan79 14:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would certainly sound better.  It's just that "criticism of Israel" is as much a contested phrase as "demonization of Israel."  But maybe that would still be clear if we followed your suggestion.--G-Dett 14:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Jay's modification looks fine to me.--G-Dett 19:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd recommend removing the word "vilification".  Beyond that, I have no problems with Jayjg's proposed version.  CJCurrie 20:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With CJ's amendment, that would also be fine with me. Would that be fine then? Mackan79 20:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any of these is fine with me.  I wrote "...this demonization represents an evolution" etc. to stress that the sentence was resuming where it left off after the first use of the word, i.e. so that criticism/demonization of Israel would still be the main subject.  The point of this was to answer to CJ's objection.  Jay for stylistic reasons prefers "vilification" the second time around.  I'd prefer to keep the same word, whether it's "vilification" or "demonization," partly because I'm not a fan of elegant variation but mostly because the exact reprise better serves the purpose of syntactic clarity.  It keeps the Israel issue on top among the various facets of NAS, and that after all has been the point of revising the lead, no?   But as far as I'm concerned any of these will do; it's nice to be debating style and not POV.--G-Dett 20:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My concern was that we might be seen to endorse the "NAS-proponent" view by including a reference to "this vilification".  I understand G-Dett's point, however, and I can see how my suggestion could serve to make the sentence more ambiguous.  Would adjusting the line to read "such demonisation" resolve the matter to everyone's satisfaction?  CJCurrie 20:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Also glad for the substantive discussion.  Regarding G-Dett's point on ambiguity, I guess my stylistic preference for CJ's amendment was actually based in the assumption that the sentence was still characterizing the evolution as the combination of things.  Of course, the other changes still place a greater emphasis on the role of anti-Zionism, which some of us were seeking to clarify.  If so, I would be fine with that, in exchange for avoiding the variation, which I think also adds a certain edge to things per G-Dett's primary post above.  Otherwise, I think using "demonization" twice is clear and accurate while also avoiding that edge.  Are either of these possible?  If so, I think we have a pretty fair definition. Mackan79 21:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to change it to "such demonization" instead of "this vilification" that's fine. I would suggest that we keep the spelling of "demonization" consistent. I have no preference as to which spelling is used. Jayjg (talk) 22:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we've reached agreement here as well.  CJCurrie 00:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quick question: Our sentences now would be "Critics of the concept argue that it trivializes the meaning of antisemitism, defines legitimate criticism of Israel too narrowly and demonization too broadly, conflates anti-Zionism with antisemitism, and exploits antisemitism in order to silence debate."  If possible, I'd like to change the order to, "Critics of the concept argue that it conflates anti-Zionism with antisemitism, defines legitimate criticism of Israel too narrowly and demonization too broadly, trivializes the meaning of antisemitism, and exploits antisemitism in order to silence debate."  I think this is a more natural and less aggressive way to put it for a few reasons, which I tend to think is good (plus I think more accurately reflects the primary concerns).  Is that ok with others?  I think maybe then we'd be good on both parts. Mackan79 14:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thought, either way is really fine, but others could say if they had a preference, or if it doesn't matter.Mackan79 14:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with either order. Would you mind starting a new section with the latest proposed lead, so we can all get a look at the final product? At that point, if everyone agrees (and I assume they will), Crum375 can insert it into the article, and we can move on to the next issue for mediation. Jayjg (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll be happy to comply when you all are ready, but can you also address Aminz's proposal below? Crum375 18:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aminz isn't part of the mediation. I'm sure Aminz means well, but he consistently finds a specific quote from a specific author that he happens to like, and then tries to skew the entire article, and particularly the lead, to reflect the view of that one quote. I've seen it on at least six articles in the past, and I don't want a repeat here. We're trying to summarize the views all all significant writers on the subject, not just one quote from one author. Jayjg (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand what you are saying. I see that Mackan79 has encouraged Aminz below to collaborate with the others and try to hammer out a single combined version. Hopefully you all can find the right formula. Let me know if I can be of any assistance to you. Thanks, Crum375 20:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For now the mediation is with Mackan79 and CJCurrie, and we've hammered out an agreement. One of the major decisions made in this mediation is that it would be between a small number of representatives, over a small number of issues. Jayjg (talk) 23:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: G-Dett

message: OK, well just to be clear, I'm fine with the three paragraph version.  My thought with the two paragraph version was that it may simply be better not to delve into the whole effort to define exactly what kind of negativity toward Israel qualifies as NAS, since it's such a contested issue.  Perhaps this option should remain as a back-up plan.
Otherwise, problems from CJ seem to include:
#The term is portrayed here as one theory, but the theory possibly differs depending on the author.  Many seem to focus specifically on anti-Zionism, others on a rise in explicitly antisemitic incidents.
#The last sentence should note conflation of anti-Zionism with antisemitism as a concern of critics.
In terms of solutions, so far CJ and G-Dett have offered two.  For problem 1., G-Dett adds "The concept generally posits that much of what purports to be criticism of Israel by various individuals and world bodies is in fact tantamount to demonization, and that together..." to the second paragraph to note the centrality of that issue. 
For problem 2., CJ adds "conflates anti-Zionism with antisemitism" to the last sentence.
In my view, solution 2. seems simple and fine.  Solution 1., I think is the problem that has plagued us, and am not sure we can fully resolve, since presenting the theory as either unified, or presenting it as separate phenomena, both take sides in a debate.  That said, if we do want to resolve the issue, that may be the point we have to circumvent.   
Notably, I think our third paragraph actually does circumvent the issue effectively by withholding comment on whether it's a unified theory.  Otherwise, the other two paragraphs do imply or state a unified theory.  This gets back to why I suggested the two paragraph version as a compromise, which still implies a unified theory, but avoids saying too much on the issue.  Either way, CJ's request remains that figuring out exactly what arguments we're summarizing in the lead could be another way to help neutrally address the issue, which I think is also a good suggestion. Mackan79 18:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My request may no longer be necessary.  I believe that Jayjg's revised proposal defines the term in such a way as to address the concerns I've raised.  CJCurrie 20:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mackan79

message: New antisemitism is the concept of a new 21st-century form of antisemitism emanating simultaneously from the left, the far right, and radical Islam, and tending to manifest itself as opposition to Zionism and the State of Israel.Sources for the first sentence are: 
*Sacks, Jonathan. "The New Antisemitism", Ha'aretz, September 6, 2002. 
*Chesler, Phyllis. The New Anti-Semitism: The Current Crisis and What We Must Do About It, Jossey-Bass, 2003, pp. 158-159, 181.
*Kinsella, Warren. [ http://www.warrenkinsella.com/words_extremism_nas.htm The New anti-Semitism], accessed March 5, 2006.
*Doward, Jamie. Jews predict record level of hate attacks: Militant Islamic media accused of stirring up new wave of anti-semitism, The Guardian, August 8, 2004.
*Endelman, Todd M. "Antisemitism in Western Europe Today" in Contemporary Antisemitism: Canada and the World. University of Toronto Press, 2005, pp. 65-79. 
*Bauer, Yehuda.  , 2003, retrieved April 22, 2006. 
*Strauss, Mark. "Antiglobalism's Jewish Problem" in Rosenbaum, Ron (ed). Those who forget the past: The Question of Anti-Semitism, Random House 2004, p 272.  The term 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. Taguieff, Pierre-André. Rising From the Muck: The New Anti-Semitism in Europe. Ivan R. Dee, 2004. Rosenbaum, Ron. Those who forget the past. Random House, 2004.Endelman, Todd M. "Antisemitism in Western Europe Today" in Contemporary Antisemitism: Canada and the World. University of Toronto Press, 2005, p. 69. 
The concept generally posits that much of what purports to be criticism of Israel by various individuals and world bodies is in fact tantamount to demonization, and that together with an international resurgence of attacks on Jewish symbols and an increased acceptance of antisemitic beliefs in public discourse, such demonization represents an evolution in the appearance of antisemitic beliefs. 
Proponents of the concept argue that anti-Zionism, anti-Americanism, anti-globalization, third worldism, and opposition to the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish homeland may be coupled with antisemitism or may constitute disguised antisemitism.  Critics of the concept argue that it conflates anti-Zionism with antisemitism, defines legitimate criticism of Israel too narrowly and demonization too broadly, trivializes the meaning of antisemitism, and exploits antisemitism in order to silence debate. Klug, Brian. [ http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040202&s=klug The Myth of the New Anti-Semitism]. The Nation, posted January 15, 2004 (February 2, 2004 issue), accessed January 9, 2006.Lerner, Michael. [ http://baltimorechronicle.com/2007/020207LERNER.shtml There Is No New Anti-Semitism], posted February 5, 2007, accessed February 6, 2007.
:You've left out the fairly critical phrase "or double standards applied to its conduct". I'm not sure why. Jayjg (talk) 03:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake, I missed that sentence.  It should be "Proponents of the concept argue that anti-Zionism, anti-Americanism, anti-globalization, third worldism, and demonization of Israel or double standards applied to its conduct may be linked to antisemitism, or constitute disguised antisemitism," as the first sentence of the third paragraph.  I'll let Crum know, thanks. Mackan79 04:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I inserted the sentence and fixed the wikilinks - let me know if anything else is needed. Crum375 04:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: With Sources and Picture

message: Why does the caption of the octopus picture link to Henry Ford's article? --205.133.240.254 14:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "The International Jew: The World's Foremost Problem is a four volume set of books originally published and distributed in the early 1920's by Henry Ford..." Tom Harrison Talk 15:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headline: Early 20th century Auto-maker travels through time to hate Jews

message: George Soros recently wrote an article in the New York Review of Books criticising Aipac and putting forth the argument that some wrongly equate legitimate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. I haven't seen the original article, but a report on it in The Guardian is here, . This might be a useful reference. Also, I suggest that the anti-Semitism infobox on the main article be moved much higher up the article that at presnet. Bondegezou 13:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Found it, original article here. He says various things of relevance to this article. There's a section on his views of anti-Semitism on his article. Bondegezou 13:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I read the essay (not an article, really) when it came out - my recollection is his argument is that AIPAC no longer serves Israel's best interests. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that Soros's views should be included in this article.  CJCurrie 22:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: +1.  The current issue of the New York Review includes a follow-up exchange between Soros and Alvin H. Rosenfeld, author of "'Progressive' Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism," regarding both men's essays; this is followed by a long letter from Independent Jewish Voices (IJV).--G-Dett 13:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Two small issues