Talk:New antisemitism/Archive 7

message: I think this may be a hoax. It is cited to http://christianactionforisrael.org/antiholo/ml_king.html.
At the bottom of that page it says "From M.L. King Jr., "Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend," Saturday Review_XLVII (Aug. 1967), p. 76. Reprinted in M.L. King Jr., "This I Believe: Selections from the Writings of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.""
I can't find anything about this book, and some other websites (of uncertain reliability themselves) say that though he expressed the sentiment in a speech, there was no such letter. Maybe someone else can find out for sure. Tom Harrison Talk 01:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't my area of specialty, but it doesn't seem that relevant to "New Anti-Semitism" but rather either Anti-Semitism or Anti-Zionism.  Maybe people working on those articles would be more knowledgeable about it.  Also you could ask on the MLK Jr article talk page if his article doesn't already mention this letter of his.  If it is a hoax as you are claiming, that should be noted on the MLK Jr article or elsewhere so that people don't have to repeatedly establish that.  --Ben Houston 02:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a brief discussion of the letter on the MLK talk page. The letter is almost certainly a hoax, but the quote “When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You're talking anti-Semitism” is not. If someone is looking to include that quote within the article it can be backed by multiple sources independent of the letter.EricR 01:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: MLK letter to an anti-zionist friend

message: I'm going to go through this at some point, maybe today, and try to tighten up the writing in order to shorten the length. I'll be looking out for repetition, any laboring of points, that kind of thing. I may also try to weave the Chomsky/Finkelstein arguments at the end into the main text, and if I do, I want to remove the critics/proponents section entirely.
If I remove something you disagree with, please bear with me rather than reverting, because I may end up reinserting it elsewhere.
I'll put the copy edit tag up so you'll know when I've started and finished. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tidied it a little; between this and the copy edit a few days ago, it's 24 kilobytes shorter. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work! Jayjg (talk) 17:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copy edit

message: This sentence's got to go: 
"The meme of a Zionist mastermind controlling the world's economy has been apparent during anti-globalization protests."
The "meme" is a highly controversial concept scientifically. Also the use of the term "meme" implies the POV opinion that such ideas are "replicated". Thus the sentence reinforces the idea of a new virus-like spread of ideas amongst the anti-globalists. It is not referenced. In general, one should beware of the idea of a meme because it is a quite weak scientific concept, but even more because it is easy to use to stereotype the ideas of your opponents.pertn 11:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "persistent anti-Semitic motif"? Jayjg (talk) 17:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: much better pertn 19:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind which we say, but there's nothing wrong with "meme." It's not a scientific concept. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Meme?

message: I thought it might be helpful to list the scholarly and government sources we use in this article, in response to a few editors who have turned up here without reading the article to complain that it isn't sourced. "Where are the sources?" one of them asked recently. Here they are. (In addition to the following, we use several well-known journalists and other writers. Full list here.) SlimVirgin (talk) 09:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The major issue isn't the sources but rather the frequent misquoting or selective quoting of them in order to create a one-sided presentation.  It's a standard technique of propagandists.  The problem with this article is that one person is forcing everything to be perceived through a distorted lens.  That said, it fairly easy to notice that the main writer of this article is pushing an agenda.  Dave Winer once said that one of the biggest issues with Wikipedia is that many articles are written with people with agendas and that more people need to be aware of this.  --Ben Houston 13:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Give me one example of my "frequent misquoting or selective quoting." And do not accuse me again of "pushing an agenda." You are being incredibly offensive. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds like a great idea- readers can draw their own conclusions, we don't need to do it for them.  Friday (talk) 16:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In order to avoid direct confrontation with SV / Jayjg -- I would like to avoid the perception that I am provoking them -- I am doing to work on flushing out the criticism section using fully quotes.  --Ben Houston 17:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But you are being deliberately provocative; you gave notice that you would do this several weeks ago. It's not a good  idea to overuse quotes, because then the section will turn into a list of quotes rather than a narrative, which is what many of the badly written articles on Wikipedia are like. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not say that I would attack the article many weeks ago but rather that I would attempt to address what I feel are balance problems with the article.  I do not plan to give up.  --Ben Houston 17:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Scholarly and government sources

message: Guy just made a great suggestion in response to my incident report.  My issue with the article is the same issue that SlimVirgin and Jayjg have with my edits -- they are disagreements about the accuracy in which the reports are summarized.  The solution, Guy suggests, is to move towards more full quotes from these reports which should reduce the importance and thus need to concern ourselves with these subjective summarizes.  --Ben Houston 16:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a great idea- readers can draw their own conclusions, we don't need to do it for them.  Friday (talk) 16:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In order to avoid direct confrontation with SV / Jayjg -- I would like to avoid the perception that I am provoking them -- I am doing to work on flushing out the criticism section using fully quotes.  --Ben Houston 17:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But you are being deliberately provocative; you gave notice that you would do this several weeks ago. It's not a good  idea to overuse quotes, because then the section will turn into a list of quotes rather than a narrative, which is what many of the badly written articles on Wikipedia are like. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not say that I would attack the article many weeks ago but rather that I would attempt to address what I feel are balance problems with the article.  I do not plan to give up.  --Ben Houston 17:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Great suggestion from incident report

message: Haaretz article.  --Ben Houston 13:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't need it. We have the report itself. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But they are useful in backing up how we describe the report. Without third-party commentary, it can become easy to draw original conclusions or inadvertantly push a certain point of view by emphasizing parts or ideas that didn't receive emphasis in the press or in general. (This isn't necessarily me endorsing the Haaretz article, as I'm not familiar with that paper.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm aware of that, and I've been extremely careful to report accurately on the parts of the report that directly concern our article. As I said below, criticism of the report will be added if and when people publish any, which will take some time. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another source for British report 

message: I've added the material from it that's directly relevant to our article. I'm looking out for criticism of the report and will add it when it arrives, but it could be a few days or longer before the serious commentators get a chance to review it. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: British report

message: Here is CJCurrie's version , and here is the section that I started, but didn't get to finish. My intention was to add more material about anti-Zionism, from different perspectives, criticism and otherwise. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (ii) From the standpoint of presentation, the previous version did not strike me as entirely fair to Tariq Ali. Having a picture of him beneath an anti-Semitic image, in a section called "the Left and anti-Zionism", may have led inattentive readers to assume that he was *part of* the New anti-Semitism. (I'm not suggesting that this was deliberate.) This has bothered me for a while; creating a subsection solves the problem.
Placing a picture of Tariq Ali under a header entitled "Left-wing anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism" does not strike me as an adequate response to this concern.  CJCurrie 21:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: CJ, you're being difficult over very minor points. The photograph can be moved, or removed entirely if you prefer. It's only there because it's on the commons. Ditto with Chomsky. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The photograph is only the most obvious problem.  The title alone could be rather misleading to many viewers.  Anyway, I'd be quite interested in hearing the responses of others to this situation.  CJCurrie 21:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that a criticism section is important.  I think my current attempt is not yet quite ready for prime time though.  --Ben Houston 00:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Compare

message: Chris, you're adding unnecessary attribution as though anyone doubts it: "to refer to what writers have described as a wave of anti-Semitism that escalated, particularly in Western Europe, after the Second Intifada in 2000, the failure of the Oslo accords, and the September 11, 2001 attacks." Can you name a source who argues that there has been no wave of anti-Semitism that escalated since those events? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just being cautious. I'm certainly not denying it, merely attributing it neutrally. If you can think of an alternative way of attributing it (e.g. "according to xxx") then please feel free to do so. -- ChrisO 22:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no need to attribute obvious points that no one would disagree with. We don't refer to the "ball of fire that writers have described as the sun." Ditto with a wave of anti-Semitism. You won't find anyone who disagrees with that basic point; well, not anyone serious. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no proposition so obvious that someone won't disagree with it. Call that ChrisO's Law, if you like. ;-) Seriously though, attributing it leaves open the door to a discussion of whether this reported phenomenon is in fact real or not, rather than just stating baldly that it is real. I see CJCurrie's managed to find a contradictory view - no doubt there's more like it. -- ChrisO 22:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: If that's a recent text, and if he is saying there is no rise, then he's making a fool of himself, because every single agency that records incidents is recording a rise. But I don't think that's what he's saying: "No rise of a new anti-Semitism"; no "significant" rise in anti-Semitism. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the cited page it's dated August 29, 2006 or shortly thereafter. -- ChrisO 22:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Laqueur may well be making a fool of himself, but that's not for you or me to decide.  As someone once said, we have to go with what the sources say.  I'm skeptical of his conclusions myself, but there doesn't appear to be any getting around his assessment (your hair-splitting quibbles notwithstanding).  CJCurrie 23:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ChrisO

message: I've done some digging in historical archives to see if I could find out where this term and concept comes from. It has quite an interesting history - the concept of a "new anti-Semitism" seems to have first originated around the end of the 19th century as a way of distinguishing anti-Jewish sentiment based on scientific racism from the older, more "primitive" religious-based sentiment. The sources show that it was later used with reference to Stalin's anti-Jewish campaigns, which were of course related to his views on Zionism; this seems to have been the earliest form of what we'd now call "new anti-Semitism" (though I've also found suggestions that the Soviets used anti-Semitic propaganda to campaign against Zionism as early as the 1930s). Then, finally, in the 1980s we have Israeli assertions that the New Left was practising "new anti-Semitism". Sources dating to after about 1990 appear to use this meaning exclusively. 
It was an interesting bit of research; hopefully it'll provide a bit of useful background for the article. -- ChrisO 22:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another editor today found an early use of it in relation to left-wing anti-Zionism in an article written in 1984. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing meanings 

message: I tried my hand at reading through the original criticism sources and organized what I found.  The result is this outline/draft of a criticism section:
:User:Bhouston/Criticism_of_new_anti-Semitism.
It is very rough, lacks some overall cohesiveness and needs softer edges but I think that even so, it deals head-on and accurately with the key, albeit complex, issues that critics have with the concept of NAS.  --Ben Houston 23:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I withdraw this draft/outline from consideration.  It was more just a means for me to organization my own views.  --Ben Houston 21:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Draft/outline of a new criticism section

message: Given that Klug and Wistrich were invited to give evidence to the British inquiry, and Klug to a previous German one, and Wistrich to the UN, they're clearly both regarded as major players in this debate, so I've added a subsection on their correspondence. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Klug/Wistrich

message: Tony wrote on a number of user pages today that arbitration may be a good idea on this page.  I quote from him here:
:"Perhaps I'm being a bit too previous, but I suspect that it's about time the arbitration committee looked at this New anti-Semitism kerfuffle.  I've applied for arbitration . --Tony Sidaway 02:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#New_anti-Semitism
--Ben Houston 05:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tony's arbitration suggestion 

message: CJ, we didn't finish discussing whether to have a criticism subsection in "The left and anti-Zionism." As I see it, there are two problems with it: first, it sticks out like a sore thumb because the other sections don't have a separate criticism section; and secondly, it makes that section read badly because the first part is all good, the second all bad. I prefer the Jimbo school of thought that, as he said, "it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms." That's how I prefer to write when it can be done, and it can be done easily in this case.
I started to do it yesterday but you reverted before I'd finished, so I have no draft to show. However, you said you weren't wedded to the criticism section, so what are your objections to incorporating the pro and anti? We would need two subsections or the section will be too long, but that can be done by identifying common themes, rather than for and against. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I'll restore what I started to work on, and when it's finished (or at least tidier), maybe you could read it and let me know what you think. We can always revert again if you dislike it. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism section