Talk:New antisemitism/Archive 1

message: "The cutting edge of this new anti-Semitism is…Holocaust denial, which moves inexorably from denying the Holocaust, to accusing Jews of fabricating the "hoax"…to indicting Jews for extorting false reparations from the innocent German people, to the building of their "illegal" State of Israel on the backs of the real indigenous owners, the Palestinians. Let there be no doubt about it, those who would seek to deny the Jewish people their past are the same people who, if given the chance, would deny the Jewish people their future."
POV. In fact, much of this article is POV. I think it needs objective revision: that is, describing the situation, not making generalizations. The UN Commission on Human Rights is an anti-Semitic organization? Please. --Tothebarricades.tk 01:44, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV paragraph claims 

message: This article is filled with highly subjective and rhetorical language and does not conform to NPOV. There is also almost no mention of sources, and the only major citation presents a single POV, which has been quoted from Front Page Mag, a ridiculous right-wing magazine. I have made extensive changes, removing most 1)rhetorical tropes and 2)claims without sources; to whoever wrote this article, this is meant to be an article in an encyclopaedia, not an Opinion/Editorial piece. -- Simonides 05:28, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: RK, I see much of the material I removed was re-instated by you. You are not conforming to NPOV or formatting expectations - ex. providing sources - and if you continue reverting this article will be referred to third parties. In fact, the whole article is redundant given that there are already articles titled Anti-Semitism and History of Anti-Semitism which cover most of this material better and in greater detail. -- Simonides 01:50, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-objective 

message: I think we should explain the term "The New Antisemitism" and what it refers to. I don't know where to put it but this article must to mention the wave of antisemitism atacks in Europe - sparked out in 2002 - in which attacks on Jews are commited mainly be European Islamists, and is justified by them on the ground of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We should also mention that the Jenin massacre allegation is regarded by many Jews as the new millenuim blood libel. MathKnight 17:14, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Term: "The New Antisemitism" 

message: The article has two many section. We should reorginize it to sections and subsections. MathKnight 16:07, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganization 

message: I just wanted to explain the edit that I added today re. the Sharansky quote. I am Jewish and regularly give money to the Red Cross, so I was obviously very concerned when I read that they refuse to work with Magen David Adom. Therefore I phoned the Red Cross (London office) today and had a long chat with one of their employees. It turns out that the situation is, as I put in the edit, that MDA don't want to use the cross or crescent symbols and so they work with the IRC in an unofficial capacity. The IRC are actually in the middle of discussions to change the symbol to something with no religious connotations e.g. a lozenge. The URL I provided in the article gives more details which show that the Red Cross is by no means antisemitic and is not refusing to work with Israel, quite the reverse. I felt it was important to correct this - as a Jew, I am aware that there is indeed a lot of antisemitism especially around the issue of Israel, which makes it all the more important not to accuse people wrongly - especially not a humanitarian organisation like the Red Cross. Thanks for reading.  Jessica
:Hi Jessica. I don't think quotes should be broken up in that way; that is Sharansky's opinion, whether or not it is correct.  As for the IRC, why is it that the IRC cannot accept the Magen David as a sign, when it uses the Cross and the Crescent, and even had the lion of Persia at one point?  Why is accepting the Magen David such a big issue for them, that they have to change everyone's symbol in order to avoid it? That is the question. Jayjg 20:48, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course there is room for counterbalancing information.  I've said it a number of times before.  As soon as you find some published source which disputes Sharansky's claims, please feel free to enter the quotes in this article.  Just make sure that it is not your own original research. I don't understand why you have so much difficulty with this Wikipedia policy. Jayjg  | (Talk)</sup> 08:08, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magen David Adom and IRC 

message: I've removed the following paragraph:
:Such charges of anti-Semitism directed at the United Nations are countered by those who observe that human rights violations by any state are right and proper matters for deliberation by that body, and the ongoing and long-standing offenses committed against Palestinians by Israel are certainly no exception. Israeli government policies vis-a-vis its Palestinian population have been criticized worldwide as being tantamount to apartheid, with the UN General Assembly, the European Union and the International Court of Justice in the Hague all calling for the dismantling of the West Bank wall. There have been calls for the paying of reparations to those Palestinians who have been harmed by its construction. Other concerns expressed by these and other institutions, including Amnesty International, include state-sponsored use of excessive and or indiscriminate force against Palestinians; bulldozing of Palestinian homes; discriminatory, racist legislation barring Palestinian-Israeli couples from living together, etc.
This paragraph appears to be original research, which is not allowed in Wikipedia articles.  If you can find sources which promote this view as a counter-argument to the notion of the "new anti-Semitism" then it is perfectly reasonable to include them in the article, properly referenced.  However, you cannot make up your own theses on the grounds that they are "irrefutable logic" and insert them into articles.  Please follow Wikipedia policies regarding article content. Jayjg  | (Talk)</sup> 17:36, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Please review Wikipedia:No original research.  This is not an article about the authority of the U.N., but about Modern anti-Semitism.  Some have argued that the actions of the U.N. are anti-Semitic; if there is a documented counter-argument by someone, you can certainly quote it in the article.  However, if you just thought it up as a rebuttal on your own, it's original research, which Wikipedia does not allow.  And please note the 3 revert rule as well, and do not violate it, which can lead to a banning. Jayjg  | (Talk)</sup> 19:40, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: I didn't write the article, and your POV insertion must be sourced.  Your claims and conclusions are not facts, but a counter-argument that you yourself have made up in response to material in the article.  This is original research, which Wikipedia does not allow.  Who are the "those who observe" you cite?  You?  And please note Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility policies. Jayjg  | (Talk)</sup> 19:54, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Statements like "it is appropriate to acknowledge" and "are certainly no exception" are pure editorial, as is, indeed, the entire paragraph.  In addition, the section is about anti-Semitism vis a vis Israel at the U.N., so counterclaims should also be about anti-Semitism vis a vis Israel at the U.N., and not your POV on the Arab-Israeli conflict.  And finally, referring to people as "intentionally obtuse" is a violation of the Wikipedia:No personal attacks rule. Jayjg  | (Talk)</sup> 20:54, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia policies are no joke, and civility is considered the most important of all of them. Jayjg  | (Talk)</sup> 03:41, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Ah ah, how cute. Imagine a romantic hero, exhausted and unappreciated. Like Prometheus, he tries to bring the light of knowledge (about vile Zionist conspiracy) into the gullible and vulnerable world. Talk about "dribbling victimhood"... ←Humus sapiens←Talk 07:15, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, at least the "long op-ed piece from a tabloid or some trashy neo-con "newspaper"" provides direct quotes and sourced material on the subject. Jayjg  | (Talk)</sup> 17:43, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: No original research

message: You've violated the 3 Revert Rule, Deeceevoice, and this is the second time you've been warned.  Continued violation will likely result in a one-day banning from Wikipedia. Jayjg  | (Talk)</sup> 19:52, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, it says what you "want it to say", because it is your personal editorial.  And violation of the 3 Revert Rule is taken seriously at Wikipedia. Jayjg  | (Talk)</sup> 20:56, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: The issue is not whether or not these things are facts.  The question is whether or not they are a) relevant, and b) original research.  An article about anti-Semitism, quoting people who argue that U.N. actions are anti-Semitic, should be countered with arguments quoting other people who argue that U.N. actions are not anti-Semitic.  This isn't the place to discuss the U.N. mandate, or re-hash the Arab-Israeli conflict.  It is the place to present sourced arguments and counter arguments regarding the U.N. and anti-semitism. Jayjg  | (Talk)</sup> 21:09, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: deeceevoice, it's nice that you're expressing yourself, but an opinion piece about the UN doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article about Modern anti-Semitism.  And reverting with slight rewords is still reverting. --MPerel 21:13, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
If you can convincingly and substantively challenge the accuracy of what I've written, then do so.  Otherwise, give it a rest.  You're boring me. deeceevoice 21:26, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Again, the question is not whether or not it is accurate, but whether is it relevant and not original research. It must be all 3 to be included in an article. Jayjg  | (Talk)</sup> 21:38, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: As it stands, the paragraph is wildly POV, full of unsubtantiated claims, etc.  As well, it is about the prerogratives of the U.N. and who you think is the villain in the Arab-Israeli conflict, not about claims of anti-Semitism by the U.N.  Most importantly, though, have you read the Wikipedia:No original research policy?  Who makes the argument you have made in the article? If the answer is "Deeceevoice", then it's original research. Jayjg  | (Talk)</sup> 03:40, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  3 Revert rule 

message: No, it's not at all about who I think is a villain in the Arab-Israeli conflict; I merely make reference to UN rulings based on their mandate/authority to deliberate and act on alleged human rights abuses.  By way of making it clear that such rulings are not the result of some entrenched anti-Israel/anti-Jew bias on the part of that body, I included information about similar findings by other bodies.  The same can be said for the way the article presents arguments by Charansky, e.g., "While criticism of an Israeli policy may not be anti-Semitic, the denial of Israel's right to exist is always anti-Semitic," with absolutely no attempt whatsoever at critical examination.  Charansky's claim ridiculous on its.  I and many of my friends are opposed to the existence of an Israeli state, but we are hardly anti-Semitic.  This is just bull.  My (presently excised) comments simply provided a balance/counterpoint to the criticism about the UN already included by Bayevsky -- which this article as it stands now clearly seeks to exclude.  IMO, this article is not a very intelligent, enlightening or credible elucidation -- and is far from an intelligent examination -- of the subject matter.  It is weak as a result.  deeceevoice 16:21, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sharansky's arguments may be sound, or they may be ridiculous.  However the critical issue here is Wikipedia's rule of no original research; that is what this article is "seeking to exclude", and for good reason, since Wikipedia does not allow its articles to contain original research.  If you find someone who has published something saying "Sharansky's arguments are stupid for the following reasons..." or "Bayefsky's claim of anti-Semitism ignores the following points..." that's great, go quote the people and their counter-arguments.  However, you can't go ahead and make up your own counter-arguments, and, as your comment makes clear, this is exactly what you did. It is your opinion that "UN rulings [are] based on their mandate/authority to deliberate and act on alleged human rights abuses", and that this is relevant to the claim of anti-Semitism on the part of the U.N. It is your opinion  that the U.N. rulings are not "the result of some entrenched anti-Israel/anti-Jew bias on the part of that body." You may be right, you may be wrong, but it doesn't really matter, since original research cannot be included in an article. I strongly urge you to review the Wikipedia:No original research policy. Jayjg  | (Talk)</sup> 00:58, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is weak

message: "Today, worldwide there are scores of anti-Zionist Jewish groups in existence, the members of which consider Israel an illegitimate state. Many are Orthodox Jewish organizations and congregations who are members of the Central Rabbinical Congress of the U.S. and Canada."
Can you name five of these groups?  And what is the "Central Rabbinical Congress of the U.S. and Canada"  Can you name any that are members of it? Jayjg  | (Talk)</sup> 20:27, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The Internet told you that?  Could you provide a website which lists the names of the 400 member groups please? Even a two "score" names would do. Jayjg  | (Talk)</sup> 20:56, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: By the way, the "Central Rabbinical Congress of the U.S.A. and Canada" is an affiliate of the Neturai Karta, and, as far as I can tell, a nearly defunct organization.  That's one organization, though you could claim it is two I suppose.  Jayjg  | (Talk)</sup> 21:01, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Actually, you inserted all sorts of claims about this group and its "scores" of (now up to 400) member groups.  You made the claim, you need to provide proof of it.  A link making the claim would be a good start. Jayjg  | (Talk)</sup> 00:43, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scores of anti-Zionist Jewish groups? 

message: Anyone know specifics of why Indonesia refused Israeli military medical assistance during the recovery process? Perhaps  it has something to do with their predominantly muslim religious view? If so does this qualify as "Modern anti-Semitism"? Something that needs to be researched/discussed I think.  ALKIVAR™ 00:37, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it was Sri Lanka which refused assistance, and which has only a Muslim minority.  However, last year, after the Iranian earthquake disaster, the Jahanbakhsh Khanjani, a spokesman for Iran's Interior Ministry, said "The Islamic Republic of Iran accepts all kinds of humanitarian aid from all countries and international organizations with the exception of the Zionist regime," following word that unofficial Israeli sources were considering sending aid to Iran. Jayjg  | (Talk)</sup> 17:50, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indonesian refusal of help 

message: FYI, I'd like to cleanup this important article: some sections are quite good, but some are weak or contain duplicate text. As a goal, I would set to have a much tighter and streamlined version. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 05:16, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Work in progress: User:Humus_sapiens/project. Your participation in any form is welcome. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:55, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please take a look. The main change is the structure: classification - manifestations - reactions. If no serious objections are heard, let's copy it over. It's not as small as I would like it to be and still a lot to be done. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 11:59, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's certainly better-organized than the previous version (at the risk of damning by faint praise).  But it's still too long.  For a start the discussion of Scharansky's test, while useful and interesting, could be greatly edited down with no real loss of content. Mascarasnake 19:18, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've shortened it, and I'm sure a better job can be done still. The "new" text is in. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 23:31, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: Arabs are semites too, why is everything on wiki so pro israel.  (Comment by User:68.146.219.50 (contributions))
*See Anti-semitism#Misnomer if you are confused by the term "anti-semitism" and its nearly exclusive application to the hatred of Jews. In short, the word was invented by Jew-haters to describe their own hatred of Jews; it does not and never has meant opposition to Semites as a class.  --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:32, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Attempting to define words by back-construction is a hazardous endeavor.  "Anti-semitism" refers to prejudice agains Jews, despite the broader meaning of the term "semite."  This usage is not exclusive to English; for example in French "antisemitisme" is defined as "lutte contre les Juifs." Mascarasnake 01:58, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arn't Arabs semites too? 

message: "he term new, or modern anti-Semitism was coined at the outset of the 21st century to describe waves of attacks around the globe directed at Jews and Jewish institutions. Core themes of the phenomenon include:
* Misrepresentation or singling out for obloquy Zionism, a political movement of Jewish self-determination
* Denying the State of Israel the right to exist as equal member of the world community"
a) governments of people?
In fact the term relates to people, not to governments. But may be the term went fuzzy.
Everybody is free to question the rights of states not only the state of israel in particular.
Imagine persons who reject the concept of a national state.
Furthermore we have to question whether I. was a "semite state".
b) Zionism is deeply rooted in 19 century European imperialism. So the focus has to be on singling out. The world changed since then and such a remark fortifies a "truth" about cultural history. 
For NPOV we shall simply adopt the popper criteria.
: I'm not exactly sure what is being talked about here, but Zionism emerged (and was perceived) as an anti-imperialist movement. The Turks wanted to keep the Ottoman Empire, the Arabs wanted Pan-Arab Caliphate, the Russian Empire was expelling the Jews en-masse (more than 2 million in period 1881-1920) and the British Empire did not allow them into the British Mandate of Palestine and cut 75% of it to Trans-Jordan. What Jewish Empire are you talking about? 
: On the other point: "Imagine persons who reject the concept of a national state." I personally have no problem with that. I would just advise that person to start with a state other than Jewish. For example, start with Germany, Italy and Japan: they started World War(s), after all. Sorry in advance if I misunderstood. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:58, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  states or people 

message: I wanted to change the first sentence 
from:
The term new, or modern anti-Semitism was coined at the outset of the 21st century to describe waves of attacks around the globe directed at Jews and Jewish institutions. Core themes of the phenomenon include:
to:
The term new, or modern anti-Semitism was coined at the outset of the 21st century to describe discrimination directed at Jews and Jewish institutions around the world. 
But I dont know if physical violence falls under the term discrimination. From the definition on wikipedia: discrimination generally refers to treating one group of people less well than another on such grounds as their race (racism), gender (sexism), religion (religious discrimination) etc.
: The new antisemitism consists more of incitement, demonization, hatred and violence than discrimination. MathKnight 07:54, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  First paragraph 

message: I haven't the time or the patience, but today I read an op-ed piece in the New York Times, "Playing the Holocaust Card," by Ami Eden of The Forward that may provide some grist for those who are unimpressed with the tiresome over-the-top rhetoric of this piece and wish to do something about it:
http://www.nytimes.com/gst/forgot.html?key=543979834995352
Have at it.  deeceevoice 21:08, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: For those interested in bringing some semblance of balance to this piece

message: The phenomenon being described here is typically called "New anti-Semitism".  I think "Modern anti-Semitism" is more about "classical" anti-Semitism that has happened in modern times.  Should this article be re-titled "New anti-Semitism", describe only that phenomenon, and all other undisputed forms of anti-Semitism in modern times be returned to the original article? Jayjg (talk) 22:03, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 05:18, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree. I think the non-controversial examples of modern anti-semitism should be discussed in the original anti-semitism article and this article be reserved for discussing the controversial concept of "new anti-semitism".  -Cab88 16:55, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should this article be called "New anti-Semitism" 

message: I've commented out some original research recently inserted into the introduction:
:The term represents a shift in the meaning of the term anti-Semitism, to apply to an apparent rise in anti-Semitic vandalism; to claim an allegiance between anti-Semitic vandals and left-wing activists seeking Israeli compromises on the Palestinian question.
:Some Jewish groups opposed to making compromises may not only view Pro-Palestinian activism as a threat to the security of Israel, but as a threat toward Jews and Jewish causes. With the recent crackdown on hardline right-wing groups in Israel, the issue of security for Israeli citizens is a controversial one, and political discussions regarding compromises in security bring both rational and irrational responses from various camps.
:As world integration has led to a rise in humanist view, so too has the cause of Palestinian human rights gained in prominence. However, these causes are seen by some Jews as a Trojan Horse; a stage for the escalation of a wider anti-Jewish climate. For them, the lessons of recent history show the potential for escalated anti-Semitism, and hence recent attacks raise legitimate cause for alarm. In the minds of some, the increase in irrational (anti-Semitic) violence and attacks are a reflection of a political climate where rational criticism toward Israeli policy has gained legitimacy.
This is not only a POV essay, and original research, but it is not on the topic.  The proponents of the view that there is a "New Anti-Semitism" are quite clear to state that simple criticism of Israel is not "The New anti-Semitism"; in fact, this phenomenon itself is discussed under "Strawman anti-Semitism".  As well, the mini-essay proports to do some sort of psychological analysis of the people who believe there is a "New anti-Semitism", rather than reporting on the beliefs about the existence or non-existence of the phenomenon today.  Part of the problem in this article is that it already has too much off-topic information in it.  It doesn't need more off-topic information.  Please restrict the article to a discussion of "The New anti-Semitism". Jayjg (talk) 19:11, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Its funny how three small paragraphs - that attempt to place an article about an admittedly polemic neologism into some context - can be called "original research." At least you left "waves of attacks" in quotes - which gives some context - sort of.  Now, if someone please can categorically separate "political attacks" from "vandalism and violence," the article might be on its way to some balance. As I see it, the article's problem is based in its use of the word "attacks" as all one kind and therefore all one theme (that might be a good sentence to add to the top). Regardless of the number of wonderful right-wingers attributed, its basically an article about a particularly POV term. Which is perfecly fine as long as its framed that way.  "Not simple criticism of Israel" :That one can claim that mere misunderstanding of the fuzzy bounds of the very fuzzy "New anti-Semitism" neologism is itself "Strawman anti-Semitism," speaks volumes of original research indeed. ;) -==SV 20:48, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The notion is only fuzzy for people who insist on making it fuzzy.  When the people who promote the notion insist that simple criticism of Israel or its policies is not anti-Semitism, it's hard to understand why people keep protesting that "criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitism". Since both sides agree with that, it's clear that the critics are making a strawman argument. Jayjg (talk) 20:58, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you know, the whole notion of having an encyclopedia is to one degree or other about dealing with things which may be somewhat fuzzy - in a way that makes them less so. But this only works if the articles are written in a... ...non-fuzzy way, yes? It seems to me that you should agree with this. Wink wink. There are no sides here - simply individuals of various clarities and fuzinesses, doing our best to organize the tokens of the English language in a way which is most clear. No? -==SV 23:34, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, sure.  Anyway, it would be lovely to have some more cited criticisms of New anti-Semitism in the article, if you can find them. Jayjg (talk) 23:46, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Im sure it would. -==SV 22:53, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Good idea.  It would be helpful it you participated in re-working this. Jayjg (talk) 15:31, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research not on New anti-Semtism commented out 

message: Chamaeleon, re-writes are done on temporary pages; one doesn't delete an entire article (except for the parts advancing your own argument) and say "ok, now we'll start a re-write". Jayjg (talk) 15:30, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, he's trying to push his Zionist POV.  Chamaeleon 17:37, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please restrict discussion to the article, and try to avoid ad hominem arguments and personal attacks. Jayjg (talk) 20:08, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-write of article 

message: Chamaeleon, your new section generally consisted of information that was not about the New anti-Semitism, or original research.  For example, you brought an article from the World Union of Jewish Students which was drawing links between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism as "evidence" of something; but since the article did not discuss the concept of "The New anti-Semitism", or describe what they were talking about as "New anti-Semitism", your inclusion was not on topic.  As well, your statement that its conclusion was a "non sequitur" is clearly POV.  As well, the quote about Chomsky's relations with the Jewish community vis a vis criticism of Israel belongs, perhaps in an article about Chomsky; however, he is not talking about the New anti-Semitism.  The second quote, which was actually about the New anti-Semitism was mostly a copy of information already in the criticism section, and other parts were unreferenced.  I've incorporated any relevant information into the Criticism section.  Please note that this article must cite people who support or criticize the notion of "New anti-Semitism"; you can't just devise your own arguments against the idea, that is original research.  Jayjg (talk) 22:05, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chamaeleon's new section 

message: Who says these are manifestations of the New anti-Semitism?  Are these taken from various articles or books describing the phenomenon?  If so, they need to be attributed to a source. If not, they are original research. Jayjg (talk) 22:46, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manifestations of the New anti-Semitism section 

message: This article was listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion in accordance with the deletion policy on February 2005.  The result of this nomination was keep but cleanup. Please see this page's entry for archive of the debate. -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:23, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Votes for deletion results 

message: While some of Guy Montag's points from the first paragraph might be suitable additions to the "reported characteristics of the new anti-Semitism" section of the introduction, the rest of his edit was extremely POV.  
If Mr. Montag is reading this, I would encourage him to recognize that the very nature of the term "new anti-Semitism" is highly controversial, and that the purpose of this article is to convey the arguments made by *both* its proponents and opponents.  Revising the sections dealing with "arguments made by proponents" is (or can be) acceptable; deleting entire sections and presenting the term as universally accepted is not.  CJCurrie 03:47, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Explaining My Recent Reversion