Talk:New antisemitism/Archive 6

message: Because a left-wing administrator did not "like" the content of this article, a new "revenge article" was created.  It started out as one tiny paragraph (listed below),
::http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_apartheid
::Israeli apartheid is a controversial phrase used by some anti-Zionists and Palestinian rights activists to compare the policies of the Israeli government towards Palestinians to those of apartheid-era South Africa towards its Black population.
Now, the "revenge article" has ballooned out of all proportion.  The tactic of this left-wing administrator is clear, he simply will not be stopped (unless people come together and stand up against him).  Wikipedia is for everyone, it is not one persons personal soap box to spout their views of what "reality should be".  70.30.193.143 20:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid I won't be standing up against him.  If an article is worth keeping, even if it was created to make a point, I'm going to favour its preservation.  This isn't (or shouldn't be) a place to fight the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. --Coroebus 21:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that the new anti-semitism is a description applied to some people who hold that Israel is an apartheid state, so I thik it is unlikely that the postition could be "revenge" for the label. There certainly are anti-semites on the right and the left, but let's not lump everybody who holds a viewpoint into one category, or else we are guilty of the intolerance as well. --Aelffin 13:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Anti-Semitism has its "revenge" article

message: I'm continuing with the rewrite/copy edit, currently working on a Conspiracism section. I'm rewriting some of it from scratch, and also moving sections of the existing article around, so it will continue to look a bit rough while it's in progress, and sections may be repeated. Please bear with me. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If anyone strongly objects to what I'm doing, or wants to edit, either leave a note here, or e-mail me (I'll probably see an e-mail sooner than a post here.) SlimVirgin (talk) 00:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Slim: let me clarify that my recent edit was intended to be cooperative.  If you don't think the information belongs in the article, let me know.  (If there was an edit conflict, I apologize -- the possibility didn't occur to me until after I'd finished.)  CJCurrie 00:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure about adding that people are Jewish. We're using a lot of sources, some of them are Jews, some not, and with some I don't know. Trying to find out who is and isn't Jewish and pointing it out is tricky for a number of reasons. I think I'd prefer to leave it out until others weigh in with an opinion. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point, though I also think that the information is relevant as regards Kaufman's views of Israel and the Sharon government.  I won't return it before others weigh in, though.  CJCurrie 01:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *I agree with SV: it's not appropriate to attempt to categorise a source's ethnicity or religion as a justification for a particular view. Providing their credentials is enough, as an author, professor or associate of some particular organisation. (As I added to the Earl Raab section)--LeflymanTalk 04:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, would you agree to note that Kaufman has historically supported the Israeli Labour Party?  CJCurrie 01:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Section on conspiracism

message: Here are some additional articles which discuss or touch on the subject, and may be appropriate to use as references:
*"Welcome to York U, where tolerance is no longer tolerated" (Margaret Wente, Globe and Mail, 11 March 2003):
::"In January, the university almost cancelled a speech by well-known Middle Eastern expert Daniel Pipes, after pro-Palestinian students and faculty accused him of racism. (In leftist politics, "racism" is now synonymous with sympathy toward Israel.) "No free speech for racists," they argued, as if Dr. Pipes were another Ernst Zundel. The university's Centre for International and Security Studies disinvited Dr. Pipes to a meeting with students because it was "uneasy" about him. The York University Faculty Association wrote a letter to its members accusing Dr. Pipes of being "committed to a racist agenda."
*"The new anti-semitism" (The Spectator,  Mar 22, 2003  by Phillips, Melanie) (which I referenced as "The new nexus of anti-semitism", above):
::"The key motif is a kind of Holocaust inversion, with the Israelis being demonised as Nazis and the Palestinians being regarded as the new Jews. Israel and the Jews are being systematically delegitimised and dehumanised - a necessary prelude to their destruction - with both Islamists and the Western media using anti-Zionism as a fig-leaf for prejudices rooted in both mediaeval Christian and Nazi demonology.
::"This has produced an Orwellian situation in which hatred of the Jews now marches behind the Left's banner of antiracism and human rights, giving rise not merely to distortions, fabrications and slander about Israel in the media but also to mainstream articles discussing the malign power of the Jews over American and world policy."
*  "Who hates the Jews now?" (The Spectator,  Nov 29, 2003  by Strauss, Mark):
::"[A]nother clement of the new anti-Semitism, which has little to do with Middle East politics, is often overlooked: the backlash against globalisation. The timeframe for this resurgence of Judaeophobia corresponds with the intensification of international links that has been taking place since the 1990s."[...]
::"In their war against globalisation, the far Right has also found common cause with the new Left. Matt Hale, the leader of the US white supremacist World Church of the Creator, praised the 1999 anti-globalisation protesters in Seattle for shutting down 'talks of the Jew World Order'..."
*"The truth about anti-Semitism in Europe" (Mary Dejevsky, The Independent (London),  Feb 20, 2004):
::"That anti-Semitism persists in Europe - and in other parts of the world, including North America - does not make it in any way acceptable. But to call what is happening in Europe a "rising tide" of anti-Semitism is a gross exaggeration. At its least malevolent, the accusation may reflect innocent over-simplification. There are times, however, when it seems to conceal a political calculation whose intentions are very far from innocent."
::[...]
::"At the same time, it is hard to escape the impression that it suits the US Administration to depict Europe, especially France, as deeply and incorrigibly anti-Semitic. It helps to rationalise the divisions between the US and Europe and "explain" mainland Europe's opposition to the war in Iraq. American officials who should, and do, know better are throwing together Nazism, anti-Semitism, racism and hostility to Israel and Ariel Sharon in one indiscriminate heap. They are playing with fire and risk provoking the very racist backlash they purport to be trying to prevent."
*Lecturers back boycott of Israeli academics (Benjamin Joffe-Walt, The Guardian, Tuesday May 30, 2006):
::Britain's largest lecturers' union yesterday voted in favour of a boycott of Israeli lecturers and academic institutions who do not publicly dissociate themselves from Israel's "apartheid policies".
::[...]
::David Hirsh, an AUT member, added: "It may not have anti-semitic motivations, but if you organise an academic boycott of Israeli Jewish academics but no one else in the world, that is an anti-semitic policy. What's Natfhe going to do? Set up a committee before which Israeli academics will be hauled?"
It may be notable (if not here, then in the Israeli apartheid article) that Professor Brian Klug has rejected the contention of the lecturer's union, writing earlier this month, "Spare us the analogies,
::"In short, the intention of the Natfhe motion - what it seeks and why - is obscure. But even if the policy and rationale were clear and unambiguous, there is a deeper problem with motions of this sort that prevents them from attracting a broad base of support: they rely on the false (or limited) analogy implied by the word "apartheid". This is not to say that there are no points of comparison, for there are - just as there are in a host of other countries where minority ethnic and national groups are oppressed. Nor is it even to say that the suffering experienced by Palestinians is less than that endured by "non-whites" in South Africa: it may or may not be (although I am not sure how to do the sums). But as I have argued elsewhere: "The validity of the analogy does not depend on a catalogue of atrocities, however appalling"."
Also, I'd strongly suggest a reading of the detailed and indepth article, "The old-new anti-semitism" (The National Interest, Summer 2003 edition) by Robert Wistrick, Neuberger Professor of Modern History at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the head of its International Centre for the Study of Anti-Semitism:
::"Whether the assault comes from the far Left or Right, from liberals or fundamentalists, its focus now is above all the collective Jew embodied in the State of Israel. Despite the incessant hairsplitting over the need to separate anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, this has in recent decades become a distinction without a meaningful difference. Whatever theoretical contortions one may indulge in, the State of Israel is a Jewish state. Whoever wants to defame or destroy it, openly or through polic ies that entail nothing else but such destruction, is in effect practicing the Jew-hatred of yesteryear, whatever their self-proclaimed intentions."
--LeflymanTalk 06:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Leflyman. Those are great sources. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional articles for review as source material 

message: I think I've more or less finished the first section called What is the new anti-Semitism?. There are four subsections, each dealing with a different argument, rather than using sources who simply assert that this/that is/isn't anti-Semitism.
*The first sub-section says that there is such a thing as the new anti-Semitism, using as sources Jack Fischel, historian; Pierre-André Taguieff, philosopher; Irwin Cotler, former minister of Justice in Canada; Jonathan Sacks, Britain's chief rabbi; and Mark Strass, journalist.
*The second sub-section says the world is experiencing a wave of anti-Semitism, but that there's nothing new about it, using journalist Brian Klug. I'm going to try to add another source here, possibly historian Robert Wistrich, who I believe argues the same thing, although from a different perspective.
*The third sub-section says there is a new and disproportionate focus on Jews and Israel, but that it isn't anti-Semitism, using Steven Zipperstein, historian at Stanford.
*The fourth sub-section says there is a new wave of anti-Semitism, the fourth since the war, but that the underlying latency is the old anti-Semitism, using historian Yehuda Bauer, with a quote from historian Robert Wistrich. Bauer argues that this wave is particularly dangerous because of Islamism.
I've also created a section on Conspiracism, where I tried to explain the background to the new alliance between right, left, and the Muslim world, and the various theories and allegations that abound about Jews, which some writers identify as examples of the new anti-Semitism (or fourth wave of the old anti-Semitism).
Otherwise, I tried to tidy the rest, and moved sections around to improve the flow a little. There are some sections it might be best to delete e.g. the country-specific incidents, but I've left them in to see what others think. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was intended that way to avoid the appearance of a list. :-) Also, Jack Fischel should come near the top, because his is the main and most complete def. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tweaked it a little for flow, and you were right: it's better the way you edited it. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I was hoping we wouldn't have to use people like Finkelstein, Chomsky, Foxman, and Chesler as main sources, because they're so predictable, and tend to assert rather than argue. I have no problem basing a section on Judt, but I've just read his article in The Nation  and I don't quite see what his argument is. He seems to say there both is and isn't a new form of anti-Semitism, and also seems at different times to say there's a resurgence of anti-Semitism and there isn't. Can you summarize the argument? SlimVirgin (talk) 04:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To your first point: yes, I suppose that's probably a good idea.  As to Judt, I thought that he was in the "resurgence-is-greatly-overstated" camp, but I'll look over the sources to be sure. CJCurrie 04:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he is saying that a little, although at other times in the article he attributes any resurgence to people's responses to Israel, so I wasn't quite sure which way he was swinging in the end. I'll read it again more carefully. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say including Judt as a "mainstream" critic would be appropriate. Finkelstein less so. On a cursory read of Judt's piece in The Nation, I'd say he does acknowledge a rise in antisemitic incidents in Europe, while his point is such incidents aren't out of proportion to those in the US. His general contention is that scholars and writers (such as historian Omer Bartov) are wrong to conflate anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism. Although, he counters his own argument (as SV noticed) by including claims that, "It is increasingly clear to observers in France, for example, that assaults on Jews in working-class suburbs of big cities are typically driven by frustration and anger at the government of Israel." He has some off-the-wall statements later in the piece which give it an overall shrill "Israel doesn't speak for me" tone, but that seems to be his mode since writing the October 2003 "Israel: The Alternative" in the New York Review of Books, particular after what Leon Wieseltier said about him in The Forward , and the subsequent fallout from his article. --LeflymanTalk 05:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly have no objections if someone wants to put a section together on his position. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What is the new anti-Semitism?

message: Leflyman, do you mind if I unfloat the TOC? It apparently causes problems for different browsers, and it makes the text (on my browser) look squished. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you go to WP:TOC, there's a section about the problems. It's not the image that's the problem, but the floating TOC within the text. If you don't mind, I'm going to return it to the way it was. Is it the sliding TOC you don't like, or the white space under the normal one? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, now I see you mentioned the other TOC. I'll restore it, and if you want to change it to a normal TOC, that's fine too, but the floating one looks too crowded with the text around it. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's something called a compact TOC too. I'll see if I can work out how to use it. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Just read through WP:TOC#Floating_the_TOC and none of the concerns seem to apply in this case.  There's no mention of browser-specific issues. With the length of the TOC, it seems to be appropriate to float it left: "A floating TOC should be used when it is beneficial to the layout of the article, or when the default TOC gets in the way of other elements." I've reduced the width it takes up to less than 30% of screen real-estate, so it shouldn't create a narrow text column. A compact TOC wouldn't really be appropriate, as they are aimed principally for lists. --LeflymanTalk 22:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: TOC

message: The left is by definition incompatible with racism. The right is still the real source of anti-semitism. Liberalism is the first word that comes to mind when trying to describe what is commonly referred to as the 'left' and the wikipedia article on 'left wing' agrees on that. The article on liberalism says "Racism is incompatible with liberalism" and generally I don't think lots of people see the definition of the 'left' containing something much different from that.
It is my understanding the left even if it is drawn temporarily into racism, for example in the form of anti-semitism, it only needs to be reminded it only meant racism, to be completely disgusted about such practices and leave it behind.
I had some experience from a local indymedia website recently. We were expressing compaints about people that not only had complaints about Israili policies (which was obviously acceptable there) but were insisting in referring to israilis as "jews" and jews this and jews that. It easily looked suspicious. It doesn't take long (after some users ask questions of the type "why not say Israel, what Jews have to do with politics?") to realize many of them are in actuality not that friendly to the "left".
The "good" news are, some seem to be only influenced in the expressions used in right wing articles with weasel phrases and only need to be reminded of racism and be disgusted of anti-semitism or the use of phrases that may be influenced by it. 
After all, the left is by definition anti-racist. --62.1.128.251 16:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that some elements of the left claim that Israel is a racist state. The claims that Israel is oppressing the Palestinians (and covering it up) are something that I personally have heard from many socialists. The left is incompatible with racism, yes, but opposition from the left to the Jewish state's right to exist is something that is present in the world. The anti-war poster at the beginning of this article is a good example of this--Socialists, leftists, who are Anti-Semitic. Kari Hazzard (talk | contrib) 17:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but lets not confuse anti-Isreali politics, which is a settler-colonialist state that is an illegal occupying rogue nation (all views consistent with leftism), with being anti-Semitic, which is completely different based in an irrational ideology, itself used for purposes of oppression of a people. This is alien to the left. Can the right-wing take up some of the arguments and images against Isreal by the left for their own opportunistic purpose? Yes, and they do. However, there is a line between being critical and opposed to Zionism, even as a form of a critque as nationalist racism, and those of the anti-semities; is a line that can be clearly distinguised when examined.Giovanni33 18:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Israel is not an "illegal occupying rogue nation" any more than the US, Australia or Japan are. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 19:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: That the left is incompatible with racism is a huge presumption based on no evidence. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *(Just what I was going to post) Racism has no political orientation, nor does "liberalism" immediately equate to intelligence. Being "left" isn't an inoculation against have prejudiced views, or discriminatory practices. In fact, the extreme expression of leftist politics, Communism, claimed to be an "anti-racist" ideology, but in practice in the Soviet Union held official anti-Semitism as a state institution. "Extremists" elements on any political spectrum can be more like each other, than their particular "wing". (One rarely hears of  "moderate extremist" except, perhaps in jest).--LeflymanTalk 18:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  At the same time, the largest part of the self-proclaimed left of today claims the soviet union and especially its stalinist years were fascist and not actually part of the left. --62.1.128.251 19:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, I see, you mean that no "True" leftists are racist. —Gabbe 21:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or even that no true racists are leftist. :-D SlimVirgin (talk) 21:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it needs rephrasing. Most identifying themeselves as "left" these days don't go around advertising the soviet union. Left doesn't mean only the radical extreme far-left or some stalinist communist party, it's also the center-left which   identifies itself as liberal, as that is dominating democratic countries along with the center-right nowadays --62.1.221.194 21:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a page for discussing the article. Is there a point you'd like to make about the article? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. I think the article needs more depth on what is meant by "left" or it may be considered offensive to self-proclaimed leftists who don't associate with racism and anti-semitism. It will prolly be beneficial to include the points such as racism in Soviet Union mentioned above and at the same time separate that kind of "leftists" from the (probably wider) polulation of leftists who actively don't promote racism and anti-semitism and usually fight against them. --62.1.221.194 22:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: omg sorry :< I just realized the only page I read that was referring to New Antisemitism was the normal Antisemitism page (I had saved the pages for offline viewing). Sorry about that. I feel like a complete idiot now :) --62.1.221.194 22:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries. I've done it myself. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 23:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The left is incompatible with racism 

message: CJ, what were your thoughts on how to restyle the intro? SlimVirgin (talk) 05:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tweaked it slightly here. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: Stevertigo, were you trying to weaken the argument against New anti-Semitism by including that Finkelstein material you copied from the Phylis Chesler article?  I only ask because little of the material you copied in there actually deals with the concept of New anti-Semitism, but instead is nit-picking about minor writing and copyediting errors that frankly makes Finkelstein (and his arguments) look worse. Can you explain the relevance of the number of Jews from Arab lands who immigrated to Israel, or Aung San Suu Kyi's religion, to the validity of the concept of New anti-Semitism? Jayjg (talk) 18:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The expansion of the section on Finkelstein gives undue weight to the criticism of one book by one man. Two paragraphs of an encyclopedia article are too much air time for this minor controversy. Pecher Talk 20:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nonsense. Norm directly attacks the scholarship of a popular author on this subject. This article cites her, as it should, but for some reason does not directly quote her work. Norm does, and has a thing or two to say about it. But theres no reason to remove Norm's comment, and the above criticism seems rather lame considering how much Klug and others are quoted above. Their work may be more dedicated to the particular subject, but I prefer to draw a distinction between article and book. Different things. Removing the material seems only to serve the purpose of removing all mention of Chesler, except of course in citation 1 from the lede. Odd. -Ste|vertigo 21:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not aware that the article uses any of Chesler's material. It was deliberately avoided, because we're trying to use as high quality sources as we can find, and preferably scholarly. Chesler's work is a polemic, rather than a scholarly study. There's therefore no reason to devote a lot of space to criticizing her, and some of the material you added, Stevertigo, had nothing to do with NAS. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well the article isnt really about authoritative research, its about a public dialectic regarding a claimed resurgent phenomenon. There is no little irony in the fact that a subject which deals basically with quotations about the expressions of racist bigots, is then selectively removing 'low quality sources' from the text in order to make its thesis more usable. On the surface this seems a bit specious, but given the fact that Chesler's book was a popular work, talked directly about the subject at hand, and no doubt had some catalytic effect in shaping the debate, it requires some mentioning here. Again, the article isnt in bad shape at all, and people should be proud of the work theyve done on it. I will of course constrain my comments to specific points where I think the article can be further improved. -Ste|vertigo 21:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, you're quite wrong and that is somewhat insulting, as a lot of work went into finding good sources. There are over 120 footnotes, so perhaps you should read some of them. I don't regard Chesler as an authoritative source on this at all, and I don't believe others do either. Her book may be of some interest, so I'm not running it down entirely, but as I said, it is a polemic, not a scholarly study or scholarly opinion. Of course editors should be "selectively removing low quality sources": are you suggesting we should deliberately use poor sources? And who are the "racist bigots"? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ive corrected the text above - I left out an 'about.' Poor sources: Im suggesting that you consider the fact that "reliable sources" often arent. The Pentagon for example has rarely been a reliable source of information - it lies all the time, and has been show to - and yet its widely treated like an authority, without any damage to its official reputation as a source. Of course there are no "reliable sources" for a topic which deals largely with speculum in areas of sociology, and there are only better arguments and lesser arguments. Being selective about whats out there - ie. excluding a popular book on the topic - is a bit academically dishonest. It may not have been state of the art, but it represents one level at which the argument was promoted in the history of discourse regarding this concept.-Ste|vertigo 00:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: If Chesler's work is discounted as polemic, then works by Chomsky and Finkelstein must be discounted even more heavily for the same reason. Pecher Talk 22:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finkelstein 

message: Why is Nathan Sharansky's opinion on a par with the US, EU and UN; and not along with Chomsky, Finkelstein and Neumann? PJ 13:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree about Sharansky not being great in that section, but we can't put him in with critics, so I left him under Reactions and responses. We could move him to the critics section, and rename that "other commentators." SlimVirgin (talk) 07:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I approve of the idea of including Sharansky with the rest under the common heading "other commentators". PJ 07:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sharansky's 3D Test 

message: Just a note to say that my most recent edit to the Norman Finkelstein section was marked minor by accident (I have no idea how that happened). It was not minor, and I did not intentionally click the "this is a minor edit" box, so I'm a little stumped. —Viriditas | Talk 03:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edit marked minor

message: CJC, I don't think I agree with splitting of the criticism in the left-wing section. The whole point of writing it that way was to produce a more nuanced article, where we didn't only have chunks of pro and anti. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I'll take another look. The placement of the image there wasn't deliberate in any negative sense: I chose an image of him so that there was an image of a left-winger who had strongly criticized the concept. It was me trying to be NPOV. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 23:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section 

message: This section is heavily POV, understandably given the subject material of the article; yet, being quite affiliated with many animal welfare / rescue groups around the world, I can definitely say the prime people to lobby for this kind of social change in Europe are the same as in other countries, people who believe that if we are to mass slaughter millions of animals each year, that it should be done instantly and immediately with causational brain death (ie: bolt gun).
Many of my jewish and islamic associates have raised hearsay issues about 'contamination' due to the use of bolt guns, however this has been scientifically negated and thus having no physical scientific difference in the end product apart from the injury and agony caused to the animal, many countries see it as improper to continue 2,000 years old slaughtering techniques that are, by modern standards, inhumane.
Perhaps someone could attempt to mention this, preferably in the first paragraph of the sub-section, as the reasoning given.  I'd say the ban being a dig at judaeism and derivitive cultures thereof is a bit on the edge of conspiracy theory. 211.30.80.121 01:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV: Bans on Kosher meat

message: I don't think the change of title (from "New anti-Semitism" to "Debate on new anti-Semitism") is necessary or appropriate (and I say this as someone pretty skeptical of the "New anti-Semitism" thesis). We have articles with titles like Republican In Name Only and Limousine liberal. These should illustrate that even a purely POV term can be a title. - Jmabel | Talk 07:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The test of whether a title like this is appropriate is the extent to which it's used by academics and other serious commentators, and this phrase is unquestionably used, and is not at all unusual (unlike, say, Islamofascism, which is used largely or entirely as an insult, and which should therefore be qualified in some way). SlimVirgin (talk) 09:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, which phrase is "unquestionably used", "New anti-Semitism" or "Debate on new anti-Semitism"? I presume you mean the former. - Jmabel | Talk 15:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the former. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change of title 

message: This is not an article I've been following all that closely the last few months—I've been waiting for it to stabilize, but somehow it never does—but I've notices a lot of material removed as POV or original research, usually material hostile to or critical of the theory of a "new" anti-Semitism. So can someone tell me: how is language like "remarks of a kind that for more than fifty years after the Holocaust no one would have been able to make without publicly disgracing themselves" any less POV/OR? - Jmabel | Talk 06:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a quote, it's from a reliable source, and it's about the topic, so how can it be original research? SlimVirgin (talk) 13:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the trick is to use a formal dispute resolution process.  --Ben Houston 18:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the problem is that a disputed and debated term is treated as if it were generally accepted fact. Same issue with "Allegations of Israeli Apartheid" except the same people who argue for "Allegations" or deletion of that article, here argue for keeping the term plain. Until people are not willing to concede how POV pushing the title of this article is, it will remain an insult to WP:NPOV in both letter and spirit. Besides the title itself, the article reads like an advocacy article with token dissent, not a fact-based representation of an ongoing debate. In particular considering that "new anti-Semitism" is a political term invented by the right-wing of the Zionist political space to descredit liberal critics of Zionism. Anti-semitism is very much alive, but as the few criticisms allowed of the term here show, "new anti-semitism" is very much a debated concept.--Cerejota 06:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: This is the second time you've mentioned a list of anti-Semitic incidents. What list? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Let me understand: first, you are unhappy of too many "quotes and opinions. There are very few facts" and then you are bothered by facts (unless you think "the list of anti-Semitic incidends" is an opinion). FYI, that is what encyclopedic articles do: they list and systematize relevant information. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It's a quote from the Euston Manifesto. If it's not in quotation marks, it should be. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: :::::Unfortunately in a few days time all of this talk regarding this image will be moot as the image is most definitely a copyright violation in that it is a photo that consists of the work of another artist and there's no license detail concerning that artist's work (the creator of the poster) - meaning it'll be deleted. Still in the meantime this issue would be settled in my mind if the caption read what the source of the image states about it being exemplary of anti-Semitism. (→Netscott) 00:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, a copyright violation, funny, so I guess every single picture of any protest is a copyright violation unless we recieve the permission of every single person who drew a poster at the event. I'm sorry netscott, but you are really reaching for an argument.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not quite there Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg (your name makes me smile btw), this copyright violation logic only applies when the photo consists solely of another artist's work (as this disputed image surely does). (→Netscott) 00:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you quote the applicable policy?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, look at WP:FU#Policy #1, specifically where it states, "Maps and diagrams can often be redrawn from original sources, though simply "tracing" copyrighted material does not make it free. Neither photographs nor sound clips, however, can usually be "transformed" in this way." what this means is essentially the photographer did not convert the unfree image of the poster into something free by merely taking a photo of it. (→Netscott) 00:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your argument does not hold up, the event was a public protest, the fact that the photograph only clearly shows one poster (although others can be seen) is irrelevant, the poster's creator not only knew that his poster could be shown widely, he wanted it. The idea that this somehow constitutes a copyright violation is utterly nonsensical. I'm sorry to be rude about it but I think you are going to have to move on to another line of reasoning.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not my argument. An editor attempted to upload this image to Commons in accord with the CC tag (you may know Commons only allows "free" images) but due to the fact that the image consists almost solely of the work of another artist it was deleted (by User:Jkelly). (→Netscott) 00:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This deletion log says it all with the deletion reasoning being "Derivative work" (meaning a photo of an unfree image). (→Netscott) 00:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just got expert legal advice and I found out what I suspected all along- that in a pciture of a public event like a protest that even if one poster is the only thing that can be seen, the only thing that is necessary is the permission of the copyright holder of the photograph, the person who created the original poster is irrelevant.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see well you'd better have your "expert" take a look at the rather extensive thread here and refute User:Jkelly's statements. (→Netscott) 00:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Was this necessary?  I assert that I am actually making informed descisions about what should be hosted at Commons and have made no assertion of expertise when it comes to web publishing laws in the state of Florida.  Jkelly 01:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Well in terms of my concerns relative to this image it just needs to be presented with a neutral point of view by adding in the caption about it that "Zombie" of Zombietime.com is the source stating that it is an example of "new Anti-Semitism". (→Netscott) 00:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please tell me that you didn't just go threw all of the above arguments just so that people would be mroe likely to adopt your suggestion for the caption modification.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is Zombie a authoritative scholar on the subject? Netscott, you seem to be grasping for straws here. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Humus Sapiens, now you're talking! Where are the "authoritative scholars" on the subject of this image? In terms of the most reliable source surrounding this image "Zombie" is it (as the source of it). This is why "Zombie" needs to be cited here. (→Netscott) 01:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: How on earth is "fair use" ever going to be established for this "Derivative work" were back to the 1, 8 and 10 problem. (→Netscott) 01:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Netscott, I'm discussing with others, who are knowledgeable about images on Wikipedia, whether to claim fair use. In the meantime, there's no need for you to get so excited, or to try to cause any more trouble. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm actually quite calm and am not "causing trouble" please cease your misrepresenting. I do intend to be tenacious about following policy regarding this however. (→Netscott) 01:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are causing trouble and you're enjoying it; just as you did when you tried to interfere with this image once before, on behalf of a new user who insisted that we say of a lawyer, who had written about new anti-Semitism, that he later went to live in Israel (i.e. was a Jew).  I've also just noticed that you've been blocked six times in five months for edit warring, so you know very well what the 3RR policy says. You might fare better as an editor if you were to pay attention to your own policy violations, before lecturing other people who manage to avoid being blocked as often as you. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, this is the only thing you've posted about today from 13.59 until now, practically 12 hours, not to mention your many e-mails to wikiEN-l. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright status

message: As someone accused of an anti-Israel political agenda (of course, I have an agenda against the ruling class in Israel, in the PA, and wherever), the image is clearly anti-semitic. I don't think those anti-capitalist agitators have a clear grasp of the Jewish Question, or they would not have used the term "counterfeit Jew," which has been used prejoratively against Jews in general since at least the 1600s, nor would they have invoked the (especialy) blood-sucking animalistic expressions. Genuine revolutionaries, including ones in Islamic countries, employ more responsible forms of anti-zionist (as an extension of anti-imperialist) protest and also warn against both the increasing Islamic character of some  psuedorevolutionary movements within Islamic countries & populations on the one hand, and the rise of anti-semitic propaganda within fundamentalist Islam, on the other. All as tendencies which ultimately serve the imperialists and their lackyes (including Israeli, Iranian, etc., lackyes), to the great detriment of the people who inhabit those countries. El_C 00:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, do copyright lawyers count as imperialist lackeys? ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you know you respond to every comment with a question?  :)  Bastique▼parler voir 01:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: counterfeit Jew

message: What do people think about the Kosher section? I'm in two minds about it. We can't include material about the alleged cruelty of certain methods of slaughter without finding a source who discusses it in terms of the anti-Semitism debate, but that will take some research, and until then we have to leave it without a balancing view, which is going to make it a POV magnet. On the other hand, it definitely is discussed in terms of anti-Semitism, and even David Duke has chimed in with a view, which in itself might make it worth keeping. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt you will find sources that discuss it in terms of the anti-Semitism debate, because I don't think animal rights groups seriously consider it a valid claim. This wild "animal rights extremist-anti-Semite" conspiracy seems to me to be backed up with nothing. Is there any evidence presented that PETA is systematically anti-Semitic? Is there a white supremacist neo-Nazi on the board of the Farm Animal Welfare Council? Is there a letter from any group to David Duke saying they appreciate his support of their cause? Those sorts of evidence would tend to provide substance to the claims that there is a link. Right now, these statements are like saying that because Yigal Amir opposed the Oslo Accords, all those who oppose the Oslo Accords are violent assassins. Duke is a neo-Nazi loony trying to get a shred of legitimacy by linking himself to an otherwise-legitimate effort by animal rights activists. We have no evidence to suggest otherwise, so at this point the whole section is guilt by association. Either we include the balancing reliably sourced statements by animal rights groups which explain why they believe shechita bans are necessary (none of these groups make any claims other than that the practice is cruel), and include the fact that many Jews believe that the practice should be made more humane - or we remove the whole thing as fundamentally unbalanced. We could, instead, provide a link to the Shechita page, where the claims and counter-claims are more thoroughly discussed. FCYTravis 19:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: On the one hand, it is definitely brought up by reliable sources in the context of modern anti-Semitism. Abe Foxman, Michael Melchior, and the Orthodox Union, are not "fringe loony groups". On the other hand, various editors who see this material seem to be unable to stop themselves from creating arguments against it, in violation of the original research policy. Even those like FCYTravis, who admit that he will find no sources for the argument, still feels compelled to violate clear policy putting in an argument anyway, for "balance". It seems to be almost a siren call, luring editors, good and bad, to dash themselves against the rocks of WP:NOR. Is that reason enough to leave it out? I'm not sure. Jayjg (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FCY, you're verging on original research. I'm sure there are plenty of sources out there denying that they've banned it for reasons unconnected to anti-Semitism, and explaining in detail what their reasons are. It's OR to bring in the views of groups like PETA, because they've not been mentioned otherwise. I'm inclining towards removing the section because I think it's going to end up being a magnet for people wanting to add their own views. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How is it OR to bring in the views of groups like PETA, when animal rights activists are clearly alleged to be anti-Semitic in quotes included in that section? I have tagged the section with an NPOV tag, and would not disagree with your inclination to remove it. FCYTravis 20:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who made up the argument that it is not anti-Semitic, FCYTravis, PETA, or you? Jayjg (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: No one has said (at least not in our section) that animal rights groups, or PETA, are being anti-Semitic, but that the people instituting the bans might be. It's therefore OR to bring in the views of animal rights groups. If editors add the views of anyone they (but not the sources) feel is relevant, then there'd be no end to it. We should only add material that has been discussed in terms of this alleged new wave of anti-Semitism. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kosher section #2

message: If the content wasn't such garbage, I would hang that in my living room, seriously, who is the artist? --Tom 02:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anybody know who zombie is and should he be referenced? Is that web site considered a reliable source per Wiki? Also, I am serious about wanting to know who the artist is. Please do not delete this section. I think the content/message is abhorent, as stated above. Thanks. --Tom 16:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (inserted into thread) Jayjg, I reverted back the caption but like my version better. Is saying a photo came from "zombie" very encyclopediactic? I am mean this is just a picture for an EXAMPLE. The article could use ANY of 1,000s of photos depicting NAS it seems that are better sourced. As mentioned, the pictute IS striking and does make a good point of the hate/scum involved, IMHO of course :) Cheers! --Tom 17:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Zombietime is part of the right-wing blogosphere.  He posts images from anti-War rallys the "MSM doesn't want you to see."  He has a repository of Muhammad images such as these .  Here is his gallery on Flick , of "Naked Moonbats."  He is a member of this group blog "Little Green Colloquium"  (associated it seems with Little Green Footballs).  He is a proponent of the recent "fauxtography" fad in the right wing blogosphere and is fairly angry at MSM/Reuterse/CNN.  His Mohammad archive, especially the recent stuff such at the link I included, contains a lot of what I consist to be racist and hateful.  He focuses on and highlights on the faults of others while being blind to his own.  He is a "culture warrior."  --Ben Houston 16:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hard to say, actually: this person seems to enjoy displaying photographs with concise labels as a powerful way of criticism. In this light, what we see at  might be understood as a very strong form of self-criticism. Rama 16:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Um, that's fascinating, Ben. Were you thinking of starting a Wikipedia article on him? I'm not getting why this would be relevant in this article. Jayjg (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: content aside, POSTER ROCKS

message: There is no Chomsky/Buchanan axis, they are not Communist/Fascist, and they are not part of a "Red/Brown" alliance.  Why is this allowed to be included, when FALSE?  The quote is unreliable, and it hasn't been fact-checked.  We cannot merely link to a "quote" and then say therefore "it's reliable", especially when they are false, biased or mere soap-box.  Also, I'd like to see some verification that neo-nazis are wearing Palestinian headresses.  That's hyperbole and sensationalism from a journalist, not an encyclopedic source or quote.   Please do not reinsert false statements and/or biased sources and quotes.  Thanks.Myung1 18:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We quote what reliable sources say, whether we agree with them or not. The source doesn't say either of these people are communist or fascist. Don't removed sourced material and especially don't change a quote, as one of your edits did. Please review WP:V. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That source and quote are unreliable, please review WP:RS.   .Myung1 18:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please explain what makes the sources unreliable. Please be specific. Jayjg (talk) 19:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you are doing, you appear to want to quote the hyperbole of a Jewish American journalist, have the unsourced material and outright unverifiable content from it disguised as more or less fact in this article.  I think that's not the best way to build a good article, but I see how it kinda fits within the rules, technically.  Nobody wants to delete the entire source, but out of the entire linked article [], why should we include the author's exceptionally unverified parts from it?  Is that the best idea?  How many lines does this author deserve in the subject article, more or less? but why include info from him that are Exceptional Claims instead of including the more legit material from that source?Myung1 19:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are we to understand that Jewish sources you disagree with are ipso facto unreliable? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop wasting my time.  That is not what I said.  Schoenfeld should not be assumed to be true just because he's Jewish.  He has no proof of a Chomsky/Buchanan axis based on Red-green-brown alliance and neither do you.  Improving the content of the article is what you could focus on, instead of sticking up for unverifible quotes supporting conspiracy theories and propaganda and Chomsky/Buchanan hatred. Myung1 21:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Chomsky/Buchanan hatred"? Is that some of well known syndrome? Are the groups or websites devoted to it? In any event, you're the one who mentioned that Schoenfeld was a "Jewish American journalist" as if it was significant. Jayjg (talk) 21:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Red/Brown Axis and neo-nazis wearing Palestinian headresses comments in the article

message: We should not merely copy or link verbatim to unrelibale and biased sources and quotes especially when they are patently false with no fact-checking.  The mere fact the aticle links to them does not make them reliable or their comments verifiable.  We should try to build an article that doesn't get into "conspiracy-theory-land" like the "Chomsky-Buchanan axis" which doesn't even exist. 
WP:RS says "Certain red flags should prompt editors to closely and skeptically examine the sources for a given claim." 
* Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known.
* Surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by reputable news media.
* Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended.
* Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a  conspiracy to silence them.
I'd like SlimVirgin to skeptically examine and find third-party verification WP:V for the Chomsky/Buchanan Red/Brown axis or something from another more reputable source that would back these quotes up.  They are false and unreliable, and do not merit being included.  Furthermore, they mislead people.  Thanks.Myung1 19:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Myung1, (un)fortunately, your opinion about what constitutes reliable sources is not what determines things around here. --Leifern 19:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Leifern, you are mistaken.  The above text comes from Wikipedia policy WP:RS.  Do you see reliablility or verifiability in these quotes or the source?  Controversial comments could be verified and reliable.  The items you want to include are neither.  Why do you think that info should be included, when it's unreliable and unverified?  That's against WP policy, as well as being false anyway.  Please help build a good article.  Thanks. Myung1 19:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:RS is a guideline, not a policy, and the policy it supports (WP:V) states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." These quotes verifiably come from reliable sources - the fact that you think they are incorrect is immaterial. Jayjg (talk) 19:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why include that "quote" ("Palestinian headresses are worn by neo-nazis"), when there are more verifiable, better and credible quotes from the same source?  It seems crazy and non-encyclopedic to pick only that from his article, an item that is exceptional and has no thrid-party back up.  Myung1 19:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The quote makes an abstract idea tangible. What other quote would you have preferred? Gimmetrow 20:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If confuses the reader and tangibly misleads. Chomsky is not Communist and not part of a "Red/Brown" alliance or axis, neither is Buchanan.  If this one Jewish barely mainstrem journalist says so, I guess it makes it into this article and it appears in a format that is POV but disguised as "fact".  It's sneaky anti-Chomsky and Buchanan hatred.  I'm merely suggesting that if we are to include quotes from these types of journalists, Jewish commentators, etc. why cannot we at a minimum choose more appropriate and accurate quotes from them that are mainstream and third-party verifiable?  The way the article portrays their one-off quotes, it disguises them as bona-fide fact and practically serves as propaganda.  Why highlight any quotes which we know are outlandish, and not try to be NPOV when we do include them or condition them?  Myung1 20:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Chomsky certainly has his critics and has been called anti-semitic. It's not POV to state that X says Y about Chomsky. It may be POV if X is not much of an authority, or the selection of quotes gives undue weight to some particular view. You can always find other quotes if you like. Gimmetrow 20:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote doesn't say Chomsky is a communist. These objections are entirely spurious. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Your personal opinion regarding Chomsky et al is fascinating, but on Wikipedia we rely on verifiable material quoted from reliable sources. The source of the opinion is clearly stated, and just because you disagree with something doesn't mean it is confusing or misleading. Jayjg (talk) 20:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jayjg, we should be clear that the OPINION is just that, and provide accuracy, not a soapbox for conspiracy theories and propaganda. Schoenfeld cannot prove his opinion, and neither can you.  You support fringe opinions on Wikipedia, congratulations, perhaps you could consider your personal opinion. Myung1 21:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's specifically attributed directly to Schoenfeld; it's hard to understand what more you could want. I don't have a personal opinion on the matter, I just follow policy. Jayjg (talk) 21:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: To: SlimVirgin -- Scrutiny of Sources and Quotes/Exceptional Claims require Exceptional Evidence

message: Can anyone help to rewrite this stuff from a "verfiable and reliable" source?  Can someone post the article it comes from, and the context withi it in which Schoenfeld equates Chomsky and Buchanan with violent radicals?  I think his words might be taken out of context and misplaced here in the Wikipedia article.  Did this Schoenfled actually say this?  Can someone link to the actual article? 
:"Gabriel Schoenfeld, senior editor of Commentary magazine, writes that: "Among those burning the Star of David and chanting obscene slogans against the Jewish state in the streets of Europe, there are surely some neo-Nazis; but a greater host of environmentalists, pacifists, anarchists, anti-globalists, and socialists." [49] Schoenfeld calls it a "Red-Brown alliance," and includes in it commentators such as Pat Buchanan and Noam Chomsky, both strong critics of the State of Israel. [49] Myung1 20:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is linked, and your bad faith regarding the inclusion of this material is astonishing, and you have violated WP:3RR. Jayjg (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Myung, you're being disruptive. We don't need to know what you think about Chomsky and Buchanan. We need only know what the source says. That's what "verified" means. Have you edited Wikipedia before with another user name or as an anon? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now Slim, why would you ask that? Just because he moves around and edits with greater ease than ol me who has been in here only since Dec. and has less than 2,000 edits? :) --Tom 21:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, sorry, I don't know what came over me. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not what "I think" it's about truth and accuracy and building a good encyclopedia, and not providing a soap-box for propaganda and conspriacy theories.  You cannot provide any back-up nor a link, to substantiate that one particular non-mainstream author's opinion, which is also patently false, otherwise you could provide just one other source to verify it, but you cannot.  It's hard to assume good faith when you're surrounded by everything else but.  How many more false comments can this article link to, and call them verifiable and reliable?  I see how it works now.  See you round the campus!!  Myung1 21:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Myung1, there is another way to look at this: SlimVirgin and Jayjg, who are strong proponents of this concept, are acting as gatekeepers on this article and are forcing it to say at a sophmoric level.  They are ensuring the article covering a concept they seem to want to push remains unscientific and filled with hyperbole as the above -- it is a fact that a large number of people reading the article people notice this.  SV and Jayjg are in fact reducing the credibility of the concept by holding on to the current sophmoric presentation.  Its sad really.  I think SV and Jayjg act the way they do because they believe in the concept and anyone that criticizes the current state of the article appears to them to be one of those crypto-anti-Semites the article talks about.  This is why they act unfair, because they think that underneath you are unfair.  Its a self-reinforcing cycle -- if you react to their unfair behavior, you reinforce they prejudices.  It has been going on for a very long while.  Instead of attacking SV and Jayjg for their behavior, you should, more correctly, pitty them.  --Ben Houston 18:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, the article has 136 separate references, many of them scholarly, in some cases representing the views of senior, well-known scholars who've been studying in this area all their adult lives, and who are at the top of their professions. And not one of those references has either been added, or read, by you or Myung. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are missing the point SlimVirgin.  The existance of reputable references is irrelevant to the fact that you are behaving as a self-appointed gatekeeper on the article and are disallowing people to easily improve what is currently a sophmoric presentation of the research in those references.  You are also regularly exhibiting prejudiced against others, just now you said "not one of those references has either been added, or read, by you or Myung."  In fact I read quite a few of them two week ago in preparation for editing this article and did my own searches for references.  I even, would you believe, took multiple pages of notes.  --Ben Houston 22:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which ones have you read? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the fact that you and Myung only refer to "the truth" (or at least your versions of it) shows that not allowing you to run free around this article is probably the prudent course of action. We cannot allow people to delete sourced information because it does not fit in with their world view.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: I suppose this critic from a quite reknown publication (Race and Class, Sage Publications) should be included in the critics section, but I also believe that the views held here are so commonplace that they should have a prominent place in the article itself. It is basically a review of the book "a new anti-semitism" but it also critizises the use of the "phenomenon" to critizise and attack people who critizise Israel. 
Link to exerpt:
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&se=gglsc&d=5006659118&er=deny
Some quotes: 
The whiff of witch-hunt 
People carry the virus. Hence the book's many and repeated ad hominem attacks, which make for particularly unpleasant reading. This is the first time in the UK that such an ugly 'hit-list' of anti-Semitic 'carriers' has been published. And it includes not just obvious targets like Professor Steven Rose, the organiser of a scientific and academic boycott of Israel, and Tom Paulin, who has written pro-Palestinian poetry, but a host of others, from Archbishop Tutu and Milan Kundera to Louis de Bernieres and Irvine Welsh, who have expressed disquiet at the treatment of the Palestinians.
Thus the new anti-Semitism or Judeophobia, as the editors would have it, is reduced to a catch-all phrase that covers anything from views on international politics to the careless use of words or images. Such a simplification, alas, blunts our capacity to take on a complex issue.
In a sense, A New Antisemitism? and the whole discourse it reflects are born of defeat: Israel is no longer seen as the victim nation, it no longer commands the sympathy or has the leeway it once did in the popular imagination. (17) The striking out by Jewish commentators, with their fixation on a new anti-Semitism, is a reaction to that knowledge, a mad scrabbling about to regain lost ground.  
pertn 21:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for finding that, Pertn. This is a review by Jenny Bourne of A New Anti-Semitism?, a book I've been trying to get hold of for two years; every time I order it, I get a note a few weeks later saying there's been a problem with the order, so I don't know whether it's out of print or what. What specific point does Bourne make about new anti-Semitism (as opposed to about this book) that isn't already in the article? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Do you mean the "hit list" aspect? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, I'm not sure that the writer has a relevant background. This is the only publication I can find for her, and it's a pamphlet about feminism. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides her one "pamplet" (it seems to be a semi-research paper more than anything else - it has a lot of citations) on "Homelands of the mind: Jewish feminism and identity politics", she had a bunch of other publications accessible via Google Scholar: .  Her area seems to be feminism, racism/race relations, and literary criticism.  Here is another book she published .  Another book she edited is here .  Her homepage is here: .  A good question would be is the journal a quality one?  --Ben Houston 22:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I saw her but how do you know it's the same person? And if it is, how is a background in Eng lit and feminism relevant? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually they are different people.  Here is Jenny Bourne's bio "Jenny Bourne is a sociologist who has written and lectured on the sociology of race relations, and an activist in the women's and anti-racist movements. She was a member of 'Women Against Racism and Fascism' and 'Women in Black', and has written 'Towards an anti-racist feminism' and 'Homelands of the Mind: Jewish feminism and Identity Politics'. She is a founder member of the collective that currently produces CARF (the Campaign Against Racism and Fascism, (http://www.carf.demon.co.uk). She has acted as consultant to educational initiatives on anti-racism from those of the GLC (Greater London Council) and the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work to the Homebeats CDROM. She works as a senior researcher at the Institute of Race Relations (IRR) (http://www.irr.org.uk). At the IRR, her most recent publications are 'Counting the Cost: Racial Violence since MacPherson' (2001) and “The Life and Times of Institutional Racism,” in 'The Three Faces of British Racism' (2001)." from .  I did a more precise Google Scholar search here -- she has a fair number of publications/citations .   --Ben Houston 23:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: There are several aspects that could be added (or where this article could be a good extra source). The Hit-list or Macartyism aspect. Her analysis of it as a response to reagain lost sympathy. But also the fact that a quite reknown researcher in studies of racism dismisses it as a politically motivated concept that "is reduced to a catch-all phrase that covers anything from views on international politics to the careless use of words or images. Such a simplification, alas, blunts our capacity to take on a complex issue."  I had not heard of JB before I saw this article yesterday, but I believe she is a researcher here: http://www.irr.org.uk/about/index.html pertn 10:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Critics that should be added

message: I've added a purely descriptive caption to the image, not saying that it's an example of anti-Semitism or that anyone said it was (but adding refs to some who did). It now says: "Photographed at an anti-war rally in San Francisco on February 16, 2003, this placard mixes anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist, and anti-globalization imagery with some classic anti-Semitic motifs. Photograph taken by zombie of zombietime.com."
As that is pretty well a definition of new anti-Semitism, it's clearly appropriate. I thought of adding a quote from an academic to that effect, but in fairness to the artist, it's probably best to leave out any editorializing.
I've seen a few other examples of the artist's work, which confirm his interest in these themes. That anti-Semitic motifs are in the image says nothing about the artist's intention, which we don't know, so I felt this was the fairest and most neutral way to write the caption. Constructive feedback would be appreciated. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Slim, do you know the artists name or any other details? Do you have a link to his other works? TIA --Tom 19:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll e-mail you about that, Tom, if you have an e-mail address in your preferences. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I've found a couple of mainstream sources discussing this image in terms of new anti-Semitism, so I may add a bit more to the caption. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: *There is no doubt that this caption is a vast improvement over what the caption read previously. The citations have added quite a bit although, besides the source I only saw one that actually directly discussed the image itself. A central point in the image that isn't mentioned (perhaps it doesn't need to) is that it's anti-Israel <-> U.S. as well as anti-Americanist. (→Netscott) 14:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you haven't read the sources. They're there because they mention the image. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I read them and yes the image is included and/or mentioned but besides Zombietime there's only one other page that actually discusses it. Mentioning and discussing aren't the same. The FrontPage mag. essentially repeats Zombie's commentary, The Santa Cruz Sentinel has the Holocaust survivor mentioning it and the Windsofchange tacks the image onto an article that discusses the return of anti-Semitism (it's addition there is essentially just a citation of FrontPage). Essentially none of the citations mentions "new anti-Semitism"... which inclines one to glance over at Wikipedia:No original research. (→Netscott) 16:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Two of the sources discuss it in terms of new anti-Semitism (the new wave of anti-Semitism, or whatever they call it). Look, I'm not going to carry on arguing with you. I see no good faith in your editing, and you use a bizarre interpretation of our NOR policy (your own OR, in fact), so there's just no point. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that A.N.S.W.E.R. is the author of the poster warrants being mentioned in the caption SlimVirgin. Wikipedia readers should be able to read the article on this group to establish the validity (or not) of the poster. (→Netscott) 09:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That Wikipedia even has an article about that group means something. (→Netscott) 09:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't know who made the poster. I'm in the process of looking into that, as I said already. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you kindly restore that wikilink? The www.jpost.com article you used to reference that image states as much. I think we can both agree that the Jerusalem Post is a reliable source. (→Netscott) 09:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Netscott, please stop questioning every single thing I do. It is not a journalist with the JP who wrote that; it is on the newspaper's blog. I am in the process of finding out who the artist is. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, all that I ask in return is that you discuss removing content that I add before you do (which so far you have refused to do). (→Netscott) 09:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing gets through to you. I had already said on this page that I was in the process of finding out who the artist was. I then told you again four times; I believe this is the fifth. Yet still you have to revert. Because you know better again, don't you? SlimVirgin (talk) 09:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As you not doubt know Wikipedia:Reliable sources do not recognize personal blogs. But we should both be in agreeance that blogs found on the sites of http://www.jpost.com/ (an organization very liable in terms of court pursuit) are of a different class. If that is the case then my edit should stand. (→Netscott) 09:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Also I'd appreciate if you'd at least read edit summaries as I stated as much when I edited in that wikilink. (→Netscott) 09:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And why did you shorten the Wikilink to the the anti-war rally in San Francisco? As it stands now the wikilink looks like it leads to an article on anti-war rallies. (→Netscott) 09:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was too much blue. Makes it hard to read. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does my logic make sense about how the wikilink now merely looks like it's to an article about anti-war rallies then? (→Netscott) 09:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: This is my last response to you. For the sixth time — the source is a blogger. I am in the process of looking into who created the poster. The policy is not WP:RS. It is WP:V. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok I'll assume good faith on your part and ask how is a blogger for a respected news organization like the The Jerusalem Post (BEN-ZION JAFFE) is not a verifiable source? Please don't forget that it was yourself who added this reference. (→Netscott) 10:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A source can be acceptable in some instances but unacceptable in others, this is especially true with bloggs, even if the person is affiliated with a reputable and reliable source with their day job, when the author is using an independant blog it is entirely different does superman speak for the daily bugle? (I just made that name up since I have no idea what newspaper Clark Kent actually works for).- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course and WP:RS allows for that (as I illustrated above). Please note that this Jerusalem Post blog is not "independent", one can be sure that the editors of Jerusalem Post exercise considerable control over what goes into the blogs found on their site.  (→Netscott) 12:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will not be so certain. Most newspapers that host a blog, are very clear in stating that they do not excerise editoril control on blogs they host. You can't, and it is not possible... die to the nature of the medium. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, BackSpin the weblog of Honest Reporting is attributing the poster to A.N.S.W.E.R. as well. (→Netscott) 15:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't understand this strange discussion at all. Who made the poster is clearly no secret. He is a very well-known graffiti artist in the Bay Area.  --Denis Diderot 14:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is that then? (→Netscott) 14:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, when Tom asked: "Slim, do you know the artists name or any other details?", she answered: "I'll e-mail you about that, Tom". So perhaps there is some reason why we shouldn't post his name here that I don't know about. --Denis Diderot 16:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that's fine then all that's needed in the caption is proper attribution to A.N.S.W.E.R. as being the organization that "sponsored it" (ie: by A.N.S.W.E.R.) thereby permitting Wikipedia readers the opportunity to easily better inform themselves about that organization. (→Netscott) 16:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Several organizations sponsored the rally, if that's what you mean. Not just ANSWER, but also BAUAW, NION, and UFPJ. --Denis Diderot 17:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well there's two indepedent and reliable sources specifically attributing that poster to A.N.S.W.E.R. The Jerusalem Post blog and Honest Reporting's BackSpin weblog. (→Netscott) 17:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are not independent, they used the same source, and it was just because the posters were near the ANSWER banner. She wrote herself that "I'm not sure they were actually marching as part of any group." --Denis Diderot 17:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The link is here. The artist has been accused of anti-Semitism before. He has stated that he isn't anti-Jewish but against Zionism and capitalism. --Denis Diderot 20:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Caption