Talk:New antisemitism/Archive 10

message: I have attempted to improve this article by two simple edits. One was to change the sentence changing the words "not not be" is "is not" with regards to legitimate anti Isreali opposition. This is to try to ensure that this article does not come off as promoting POV. Use of the words "need not be" as the article states currently implies anti-semitism on the part of people who oppose Israel. In other words, "need not be" is a loaded phrase and puts POV into the article, and should be eliminated. Slim Virgin reverted on the basis that it was taken from a quote when clearly it was not. I will revert this back, unless anything else is posted. Secondly, there has been a platitude state at the end of the United States section. It is a useless sentence that says something to the effect that the United Nations Human Rights Committee spent more than half of its time on Israel, more time than all countries combined. It may seem petty to argue style. But clearly, there is no need to point out that more than half is majority. Any idiot with basic arithmetic skills could see that. However, it has been reverted twice. Therefore, I am reverting that section back to the way it should be. There is no reason to have the back of that sentence. Nlsanand 00:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With regards to the passage about the time the UN spent on Israel, it is important to add emphasis to the implications of the commisions actions, therefore I am reinserting that passage. I do not even understand your other argument. All the wording is saying is that it is not inherantly antisemitic, but sometimes it can be as it depends on the motivations of the speaker. I don't see how you could argue against this as it is not particularly controversial.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What needs to be emphasized, unless someone is pusting a POV? It's just redundant. Currently, it just looks like someone with poor writing style created this article.  I am invoking the three revert rule on this. Please do not revert again.
For the other edit.
The distinction between "is not" and "need not be". Please look at the two following sentences:
*"They neeed not be so rude"
*"They are not rude"
The first one clearly implies that THEY ARE RUDE, but don't have to be. Similarly, you are making the accusation that people who oppose Israeli apartheid are anti-semitic. Nlsanand 01:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: First of all you obviously have no understanding of the 3RR rule as I have only reverted 2 times in the last 24 hours. Second of all, you are not making any sense, normal writing is filled with stylistic emphasis that may technically be redundant. I do not understand why you persist on such a small issue. The other issue makes even less sense. All the passage implies is that the criticism may be anti-semitic but is not inherantly anti-semitic.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was saying don't change it again, or you will be and apparently have violated the rule. Make sense, now. Also, might I ask why you persist on such a small issue? Why do you care so much? At least I care with a valid reason. Nlsanand 22:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually even if this were still in that 24 hour period another edit would not be breaking the 3RR, you seem to have a tendency to not read things that you should before commenting on them (policies and sources for example). If you wish to see my reasons for favoring the version you merely need to scroll up. The fact is, you continually either imply or outright state that only your reasons make sense, when in fact they might make the least sense out of any argument on this talk page. If you would pick up a book and read it you may be surprised by the amount of similar "redundant mistakes" the author makes. In fact you may be outright shocked that so few people seem to conform with your idiosyncratic interpretation of the English language.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Nlsanand, have you actually read what the source says? SlimVirgin (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does it matter? This is not a quote, why are we inisting on writing so poorly. It's a platitude, encyclopedias don't need platitudes. Your insistece upon this in spite of facts baffles me.   
Also, I've amended the section to say "need not be deemed". I think it is a good compromise. Nlsanand 22:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be a really good idea to read a source before trying to summarize what it says; I'm baffled that you don't. Jayjg (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look you guys are quite condescending for people who don't understand simple logic. It doesn't matter what the source says! By the way, I did read it before. The point I was making is my edit has not changed the meaning of anything, just eliminated redundant info. This is really dense. I am editing this again. Nlsanand 23:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently, someone beat me to it. Nlsanand 23:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Isn't the whole sentence, about a single meeting in 2002, somewhat redundant and irrelevant?  The argument is made quite thoroughly already.  I'd suggest simply taking out the sentence, which is much weaker than the argument that precedes it. Mackan79 02:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverts by Slim Virgin and Al Silverburg

message: I see that Humussapiens has restored the propaganda edit.  I must say I'm accustomed to special pleading, double standards, and aggressive wikilawyering from these editors; what seems new however is the persistent shoe-horning in of bad-faith misrepresentations.  Enough of the nonsense; let's go straight to mediation.--G-Dett 05:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you add a couple more times "propaganda edit" and "ridiculous edit" for good-faith discussion? Å©Humus sapiens Ñ~ÑÖ? 06:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Forget it Humus, it's calculated prevarication, not heated rhetoric, which is relatively new to this page and which is destroying the atmosphere of good faith.--G-Dett 06:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit War

message: Armon, I appreciate your good work in this section, rescuing what had become a bad situation indeed.  I don't understand your latest edit however, and I think there might be a misunderstanding.   Your edit summary says "rv OK how about WP:V? in any case the burden of proof is on removal -G-Dett check source it's "Contemp exmpls of AS in public life, media, schools, workplace, and and in the religious sphere".  Have another look at the document in question.   First of all, you'll find there are two subsections of examples.  The first of these has the heading you quote in your edit summary, but this is not the section we quote from in our article; none of the examples we've entered into the article come from this subsection.  They come from the second subsection, which is headed "Examples of the ways in which antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the state of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:" and then it goes on to list the examples we do quote in our article.  This is the framing language for the relevant section we quote in full in our article; that's why I sampled it in the edit you've now removed.  Which brings me to the second apparent misunderstanding.  You say "the burden of proof is on removal," but it's you who's doing the removing, no?  Please consider self-reverting.--G-Dett 15:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I went to bed but I take your point re: the bullet points which were quoted. As for the "removal point" - the edit summary was admittedly a mess. What I was talking about the commenting out of the "history" section. I'm sure you agree that if we're going to remove a big chunk of cited text, the burden of proof is on those who wish to remove it. <<-armon->> 22:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I see.  All clear now.--G-Dett 23:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Progress on EUMC working definition 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

message: The last 50 edits are almost all edit-warring; only the last bit is by an anon.  I think that full protection, not semi-protections, is needed.  People are talking, which is great, but talking while reverting isn't good.  Guettarda 19:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protection 

message: The conservative American Jewish Committee released a document/report entitled "Progressive" Jewish Thought & The New Anti-Semitism that was covered today in this news story in New York Times.  --64.230.121.37 04:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm ... yes, I think we should add this to the article, once page protection is lifted.  Btw, the latter piece was also printed in the International Herald Tribune: .  CJCurrie 05:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Seems pretty clear to me that one major way that antisemitism is spreading is by the mere fact that the term includes more and more bordering on the absurd. Well well. When the article is unlocked, someone should include this in the article, and not least the comments mentioned in NYT. quite a few good ones there. pertn 14:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Progressive" Jewish Thought & The New Anti-Semitism 

message: I posted this on Mackan's talk page, now reposted here in the hope of getting more comments. 
I have been trying to step back a bit to examine why the article would refer to this report and what bits it would refer to. I would really appreciate your view on this and then afterwards maybe we could turn to how it should be done. 
The existence of the inquiry is clearly significant to the Antisemitism article, as it was a response to a real and perceived rise in antisemitic incidents and antisemitic discourse. 
So, to what extent is the fact of this inquiry and its report relevant to the article New antisemitism, the purpose of which is to explain "new antisemitism" as a (contested) concept? Only tangentially, one might argue. Although the inquiry was set up in response to a rise in antisemitism, only some authors, not all, identify that rise as new antisemitism. If the article is about "new antisemitism" as a concept not as a phenomenon, then it is hard to say that the inquiry is relevant. 
There is however, an overriding argument in favour of the use of the inquiry report as a source in the New antisemitism article. Because the recent rise in antisemitism (occasioning the inquiry) has been accompanied by a large amount of discussion of the term "new antisemitism", then the report will necessarily address questions that are at issue in that discussion (for example, the newness of this recent antisemitism, whether all criticism of Israel is antisemitic, the extent of antisemitism on the Left and among Muslims). 
Since the fact of the inquiry’s establishment is pertinent to the article, the article should briefly summarise, in the report’s own terms, the context in which the inquiry was established, the purpose of the inquiry and what its recommendations were. 
Next, the debate around "new antisemitism" as presented in the article, suggests a number of questions on which the inquiry's views are relevant and should, if possible, be cited. Some of these would seem to be: 
*How does the report define the term “antisemitism”?
*What does it say about the term “new antisemitism”?
*What does it say about whether criticism of Israel is antisemitic?
*What does it say about antisemitism on the Left?
*What does it say about antisemitism among Muslims?
*What does it say about a coalescence of views between the Right, Muslims and the Left (or any two of these)?
These are not exhaustive and it goes without saying that the report is a reliable source in WP terms and can be drawn on for further factual information. These could include points that the report makes in passing so long as the general argument of the report is not thereby distorted.
Itsmejudith 10:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds reasonable. As I see it it adresses some of the problems I mentioned in the part here about the "responses" section. pertn 11:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Itsmejudith's suggestions and cogent framing of the matter at hand.--G-Dett 14:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also repeating, I agree this is the right kind of framework, to make it more explanatory and less point-by-pointish. I made my effort, so I'm interested to see yours. At the same time, I'd say conciseness is good, as long as the line of thought and neutrality remains clear. Mackan79 14:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reflecting the UK All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry in the article 

message: Again, given that Buchanan is far more notable than any of the academics quoted in this article, perhaps we should included the now famous quote made by Pat Buchanan in 1990 that deals with the Israel lobby in Washington D.C. -- many saw Buchanan's comments as antisemitic at the time, and he is still considered an antisemite by many. At that time Buchanan referred to Capitol Hill as "Israeli-occupied territory" -- quoted in Media Notes, The Washington Post, September 15, 1990 (in Wikipedia's article on Buchanan). This comment is what caused many to start seeing Buchanan as an antisemite (this label still hovers around him today, as he still writes article for VDARE and other publications that are very critical of Israel and Jews). Therefore, shouldn't Buchanan's quote be included in the article (especially in the section called "The far right and Islamism") as part of the "New antisemitism"?  --WassermannNYC 10:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to point out that our choice of sources should be guided not by notability but by reliability. Itsmejudith 12:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think reliability is an issue here, as there is no doubt that Buchanan said this.  It has been quoted many times, and as far as I know, he has never denied saying it.  He may have intended it as an exaggeration, but he still said it.  As for "notability", strictly speaking that is a criteria for whether a person merits having an article about them, which is not the question here.  But I do think that prominence, importance, following, or however you want to look at it, of a person who made an inflammatory remark, has significant bearing on whether it belongs in an article on the subject.  When a former presidential advisor, several-time presidential candidate and longtime tv commentator makes a remark like this, it belongs in the article.  Not to mention, there have been whole articles written about whether the guy is an antisemite or not, and a whole section of his Wikipedia article is devoted to the subject.  The only question for me is whether Buchanan is part of the "new" antisemitism or the "old" antisemitism and I am not sure where that line is.  He has toned down his remarks in recent years, and due to the passage of time there haven't been any cases in the past few years of former Nazi concentration camp guards facing deportation so he can leap to their defense.  6SJ7 12:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We'd need some indication that this is related to the concept of new antisemitism. We use David Duke as an example in the far right section because he's reached out to Islamic antisemites, people he'd normally oppose too, but he's prepared to forge those relationships because he dislikes Jews more than he dislikes Muslims. It's not clear that there's anything like that going on with Pat Buchanan. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: This is in response to both SlimVirgin and AnonMoos.  I think that an argument can be made that some of his views on the Middle East (i.e. his opposition to both Iraq wars and his views on Palestinian statehood) are somewhat related to his views on Israel and his barely-concealed opinion of Judaism.  I do not know whether there are any sources that say so, and there certainly are people who share those views who are not antisemites.  (He just doesn't happen to be one of them.)  It's a question of cause-and-effect, for which I do not have an authoritative answer.  Looking at his views overall (see Pat Buchanan and the oddly-titled Political views of Pat Buchanan on global affairs), they are a rather odd mixture.  One might say that he is so far to the right that he starts to circle around into the far left -- his views on both the Middle East and economic globalization are essentially the same as those of Ralph Nader -- or it may simply be that his ideology is "sui generis" and that he is therefore difficult to fit into any larger trend.  My conclusion is that this article would not suffer from his absence, but I think he should be mentioned in some article on antisemitism, with the controversy over whether he is antisemitic being derived from what is already present in Pat Buchanan.  6SJ7 16:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That may all be very true, but the place for discussion of borderline cases, "odd mixtures" and "sui generis" special cases is not this article (which should aim more to include typical and well-verified cases of New antisemitism)... AnonMoos 17:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Famous [[Pat Buchanan]] Quote: [[Capitol Hill]] = "Israeli-occupied territory" -- Is It Part of the "New antisemitism"? 

message: "Klug and his group seem to feel that current Jewish organizations are too supportive of current Israel government policies, and that they claim to speak for a broader spectrum of Jews than they actually represent - this is what they are protesting. How that becomes a comment on a confluence of antisemitism from the left, the right, and Muslim groups is frankly so bizarre that it troubles me that people would even suggest it. Have they read the article at all?"
The sources don't agree with Slim and Jay that this is an "intra-Jewish debate" and as such has no bearing on NAS.  If it's a question of "new antisemitism" (both the phrase and the concept) being explicitly invoked, today's Guardian coverage of the IJV settles it pretty clearly:A parallel struggle is under way in the US where the American Jewish Committee published an article accusing liberal Jews such as the historian Tony Judt of fuelling anti-Semitism by questioning Israel's right to exist. The essay by Alvin Rosenfeld said that "one of the most distressing features of the new anti-Semitism" was "the participation of Jews alongside it".
"It requires a leap to take us from [the IJV statement] to new antisemitism, given that it's not usually Jews who are accused of being antisemites, thought of course it's possible," says Slim.  Trouble is, the sources disagree with her on both points.--G-Dett 20:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IJV and the New Antisemitism 

message: * There Is No New Anti-Semitism, RABBI Michael Lerner.  Op-Ed.
* MuzzleWatch: Tracking efforts to stifle open debate about US-Israeli foreign policy., run by Jewish Voice for Peace.
** Obviously inspired by Campus Watch.
--70.48.69.253 21:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The above article and website are directly related to the earlier section #"Progressive" Jewish Thought & The New Anti-Semitism.  But you can move it here if you so desire.  --70.48.69.253 21:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More discussion

message: I haven't yet been able to trace the intricacies of what's been going on, but there have been some over-hasty edits, I think.  For example:
1. In this edit, Liftarn tags a caption as original research. The caption is: "this placard mixes anti-imperialist, anti-American, anti-capitalist, anti-Zionist and anti-globalization imagery with some classic antisemitic motifs", and the placard contains the words "no war", "zionist pigs", a swastika-wearing devil bearing the U.S. and Israeli flags, etc... This is surely original research in the same sense that a photo of a tree captioned "a tree" would be original research. 
2. In this, SLimVirgin says in her edit summary: "rv to Jayjg; can't see the point of Mackan's changes, except as change for change's sake, with accompanying deterioration of the writing, tense confusion etc (e.g. states then stated)", yet the edit in question had included a change from:
The inquiry adopted the view of racism expressed by the MacPherson report after the murder of Stephen Lawrence, namely that a racist act is defined by its victim, and that it is the Jewish community that is in the best position to determine what is anti-Semitic.
to:
In opening, the inquiry states that it took into account the the view of racism expressed by the MacPherson report after the murder of Stephen Lawrence, namely that a racist act is defined by its victim, concluding that it is the Jewish community that is in the best position to determine what is anti-Semitic.
Yet the former is false and the latter true, as the MacPherson report (being into the death of Stephen Lawrence) didn't say anything about the Jewish community and anti-Semitism — its conclusions concerning racism in general were being applied by the inquiry to anti-Semitism in particular.
3. In this edit, G-Dett said that he was "correcting (deliberately?) doctored source material", yet (aside from removing four references), his edit didn't obviously do anything of the kind.  For example, he changed "The EUMC added that criticism of Israel cannot be regarded as antisemitism so long as it is 'similar to that leveled against any other country.'" to "The statement added that, 'However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic.'" (slightly worse English, but not obviously different in content).  The change from "the EUMC offered a definition of new or contemporary antisemitism,[ref.] one that the British government was urged to adopt by a 2006 all-party parliamentary inquiry" to "the EUMC offered a working definition of antisemitism that the British government was urged to adopt by a 2006 all-party parliamentary inquiry" changes "new or contemporary" to "working" (which is more accurate, though not obviously a doctoring of the source material, while the addition of "The definition offered several examples of ways antisemitism could manifest itself with regard to Israel" is helpful, but adds "could" (where the source document simply says "Examples of the ways in which anti-Semitism manifests itself with regard to the state of Israel").  So there would seem to be different inaccuracies in both versions — neither being obviously serious, despite the emotional tone of the edit summary.
I could, of course, add more; I haven't yet (and I don't want to, if I can help it) divided people up into polarised "sides" in the dispute, so it may be that my randomly extracted examples will appear to favour one such side over another; that would be a misinterpretation.  I think that it's clear that it's a genuine dispute, not a clash between the forces of truth and goodness against those of falsehood and evil.
Perhaps the first stage of calming down the dispute would be for those involved to go into the history of the article, look at their own edits, and try to see them from a neutral point of view.
Anyway, I'll continue looking at the history here and in the article in order to see if there's anything that I can reasonably contribute.  I'm afraid that I'm in the middle of a very heavy teaching term, with lots of marking, but I'll devote as much time to this as I can. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 22:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Without wanting to antagonize existing divisions any further, I believe that G-Dett's comments in this edit () referred to usage of the term "new or contemporary antisemitism", which did not appear in the source document.  CJCurrie 22:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I mentioned that — but as I say, it doesn't seem a huge point (and the term "contemporary" is used of the examples). --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 23:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Also to whether the numbered items that followed constituted the "definition" in the original source, or rather the second of two subsets of examples.--G-Dett 23:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 23:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some initial comments 

message: Hello, I think this should be fairly uncontroversial since it is unrelated to the current dispute, but the present protection notwithstanding, these edits should be appropriate, right? After all, Rabbi Lerner has been a major voice in this debate for many years, and the editorial directly addresses the topic of this article. Andrew Levine 23:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have no problem with it, though not in the lead. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the only thing actually being added to the lead is a superscript footnote, next to another footnote. The actual text being added is in a much later section. I am not sure if you misread the edits or if I misunderstand what you mean. Andrew Levine 23:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I see what you mean... The clause added to the lead is an important point that is made in both of the referenced articles, including the one that was already there (Klug), and it is a point which was elaborated in more detail in the article, even before my edits, and so given that the lead should summarize the points that are made in the article, it seems appropriate. Andrew Levine 23:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe with an "or" instead of an "and," because not all or even most critics say that? I'm not keen in general on seeing the lead added to, but I'll defer to what others think. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the lead is probably too short given the length of the article. I'd be okay with "or" as opposed to "and." I too hope to hear from the others. Andrew Levine 01:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michael Lerner 

message: I'd just like to remind everyone that I still have outstanding concerns about the article's paragraph on Edward Flannery.  The current version of the article includes a demonstrably false statement, and is irrelevant besides.  CJCurrie 01:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Flannery reminder

message: Are we all anti-semites now?, Matthew Yglesias:
:"But, according to the essay, the distinguishing characteristic of the "new anti-semitism" seems to be that, unlike the old anti-semitism, it doesn't necessarily involve a bigoted view of Jewish religion, Jewish people, Jewish culture, or Jewish anything else.
:It's not, in short, anti-semitism. Which perhaps explains why so many Jews - the essay names Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen, historian Tony Judt, poet Adrienne Rich, and playwright Tony Kushner, among others - are guilty of it. How does the paper pull this off? By starting out with a transparent fraud: identifying anti-semitism - hatred of Jewish people - with anti-Zionism, or the belief that Israel should not exist as a Jewish state.
:The latter view, while not something I agree with, simply is not anti-semitism. One could imagine applying the latter label to someone who proposed the physical destruction of the Israeli population. But the supposed sins of the "new" anti-semites don't even come close."
and
:"One doubts that any actual progressive Jews will find any of Rosenfeld's argument persuasive. That, however, is hardly the point. Rather, the existence of strident Jewish criticism of Israel poses a threat to the taboo on non-Jews criticising Israel. After all, one might think, if Jews are saying it, surely a non-Jew can say it, too - and without being accused of anti-Semitism. Thus comes the AJC essay, a brief shot across the bow to warn the goyim that nothing will spare them from being smeared."
--70.48.242.93 20:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anon, is there a particular point to this cut-and-paste?  I mean, an implied editorial suggestion or proposal for the article once it's unlocked?  --G-Dett 20:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, someone should add a section on "Progressive Jewish Thought & The New Anti-Semitism" to this article or create a new article specifically on that essay's charges and the response/discussion around it as it has garnered quite a lot of reaction and discussion.  This essay of Matthew Ygjesias is part of the Guardian's article series on Independent Jewish Voices which is discussed extensively above and it also mentions explicitly the "new anti-semitism" thus claims that it isn't about the "new anti-semitism" are difficult to put forward.  This is an ongoing discussion.  More articles have come out recently such as this one in the TNR: Split Personality: The New Anti-Anti-Semites  My belief is that limiting the discussion to within this New anti-semitism article is unnecessary, and a new article on the provocative essay itself is a better solution.  --70.48.242.93 21:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. Yes, there's been some talk of that.--G-Dett 21:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Now you're advocating quoting bloggers in this article? Does WP:V mean nothing any more? Jayjg (talk) 23:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are we all anti-semites now? 

message: It's clear that term term "Islamism" should be changed to "radical Islamism" or "militant Islamism" or some close variant thereof; as it stands now "Islamism" just simply isn't the correct term. Again, it's mostly radical/fringe Islamists that espouse beliefs thought to be part of the so-called "New antisemitism." One cannot lump the entire Islamic world (approx. 1.5 billion followers) in to one term -- it's the radical element of Islamists that are the "new  antisemites," not ALL Muslims. Using such a broad term like "Islamism" implies ALL of Islam (the entirety of the Islamic world), and that is why I have a problem with this term.  I cannot believe that glaring errors like this have sat in such closely watched article for so long -- this only shows that Wikipedia has a very long way to go before it can reach anything even remotely resembling 'NPOV.' I suggest that this be remedied ASAP.  --WassermannNYC 05:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Radical Islam" would be better than "radical Islamism", wouldn't it? "Islamism" is a term which is reasonable synonymous with "Radical Islam," and "Islamist" is a synonym for "follower of radical Islam," not for "Muslim".  I'd suggest that  "Islamism" ought to be avoided so much as possible, given that clearer, less inflammatory, terms are available. john k 06:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Term "Islamism" 

message: Which is stronger:
 
or
I say the quote on the left for the following reasons:
a) it covers more ground taking on both the anti-Zionism = anti-Semitism question as well as making the point that misusing the term anti-Semitism threatens to make it easier for real anti-Semitism.
b) Klug ends his essay in the Nation with the quote on the left - writers often conclude on their stronger point so this suggests that Klug himself thinks this is a strong quote. 
c) on the other hand, the journal that published the essay from which the quote on the right comes used two other quotes as pullquotes over this one suggesting they didn't see it as particularly strong.
d) the quote on the right doesn't really make an argument, it just expresses a complaint wheras the quote on the left summarizes Klug's main point quite powerfully.
Looking at their contributions the two editors who have expressed a preference for the quote on the right both seem to disagree with Klug's arguments so I'd like to hear what people who agree with Klug or are neutral think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tira_Massu (talk • contribs) 
:Don't come here assuming you know what anyone thinks, or that because someone has a POV you disagree with, they can't write and can't recognize good writing.
:I assume  is the same person as , but you lost your password, as they often do. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume  is also the same person as . Another password no doubt sadly lost. :'-( Jayjg (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a conflict of interest; it's called being a Wikipedian. If you don't know what that means, please find another website to assume bad faith on. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm surprised that Jayjg didn't beat me to this: please remember Wikipedia:Civility and Assume good faith.  --WassermannNYC 04:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a matter of good or bad faith; it's a matter of good or bad edition. The quote "When anti-Semitism is everywhere, it is nowhere. And when every anti-Zionist is an anti-Semite, we no longer know how to recognize the real thing--the concept of anti-Semitism loses its significance" is much more powerful and representative of the author's thougt than the timid Klug pullquote currently used in the article. I favor substituting the former for the latter, so that readers will grasp at first glance the extent and depth of Klug's convictions, which is what a pullquote is useful for in the first place. --Abenyosef 02:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed, it seems to better reflect the depth of his views. —Ashley Y 01:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, I changed it. —Ashley Y 20:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brian Klug pullquote 

message: Please place any reliable sources which clearly state that "New antisemitism" is a "pejorative political epithet" here, quoting the words of the source that make that specific claim. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 03:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In your opinion, of course. Jayjg (talk) 04:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ashley, I've looked at your David Aaronovitch article, but can't see where he says that. Can you give us the quote? SlimVirgin (talk) 04:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please examine this edit that you made before asking me to back up claims that I am not making and I don't think are relevant. —Ashley Y 04:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:ATT is the only relevant thing here; your own original research is certainly not relevant. Jayjg (talk) 04:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources which clearly state that "New antisemitism" is a "pejorative political epithet" 

message: #Aaronovitch, David. "The New Anti-Semitism", The Observer, June 22, 2003.
#:Quote him describing "New antisemitism" as a "Pejorative political epithet" please. Jayjg (talk) 03:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: This is the wrong bar. There are plenty of sources that actually use "new antisemitism" as a pejorative political epithet. —Ashley Y 03:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In your opinion, of course. Jayjg (talk) 04:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ashley, I've looked at your David Aaronovitch article, but can't see where he says that. Can you give us the quote? SlimVirgin (talk) 04:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please examine this edit that you made before asking me to back up claims that I am not making and I don't think are relevant. —Ashley Y 04:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:ATT is the only relevant thing here; your own original research is certainly not relevant. Jayjg (talk) 04:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments