Talk:New antisemitism/Archive 3

message: Controversy regarding new anti-Semitism centers on whether opposition to the state of Israel expresses anti-Semitism only as a symptom or by-product, or whether it is more closely linked to, and supported by, more general anti-Semitic beliefs.
This appears to be a false (or perhaps a misleading) dichotomy, as many would argue that some forms of opposition to the state of Israel do not express anti-Semitism in any manner.  I believe I understand what is intended by "symptom or by-product", but the wording could surely be improved (assuming that this section of the text is necessary to the article at all, of which I'm skeptical).  CJCurrie 03:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi CJ, I'm afraid I don't understand your point. The new anti-Semitism is closely associated with the left, in the sense of emanating from the left, originating with the left, being identified with the left etc etc. This is according to all the literature on it. Do you have a source showing that it's closely associated with another point on the political spectrum? SlimVirgin (talk) 03:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've clarified the intent of my previous statement in point (i) below.  I was primarily concerned with presentation, not content.  CJCurrie 03:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: :(i)  My removal of The new anti-Semitism is closely associated with the Left and its opposition to Zionism
I have two problems with this statement.
While it is unquestionably true that manifestations of the "new anti-Semitism" have been disproportionately (although not exclusively) associated with the left, this wording seems questionable.  Writing "A is closely associated with B" could suggest or imply that "B is closely associated with A", which would be a POV violation in this instance (albeit perhaps an unintentional one).  I'm not disputing the basic point, but the presentation could be improved.
"The Left and its opposition to Zionism" also appears dubious, for the simple reason that "the Left" does not hold a unified opinion in relation to Zionism: there are some countries in Europe where the established Left is more supportive of Israel than is the established Right.  Rephrasing this as "the Left and opposition to Zionism" would convey the essential point without leading the reader to a potentially false or oversimplified conclusion. CJCurrie 18:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (ii)  My tense changes in reference to the "old" anti-Semitism
As I noted in my edit, the "old" anti-Semitism has unfortunately not disappeared from history: there are still several pro-Nazi parties and organizations in Europe.  One could argue that much of the contemporary anti-Semitism in the Arab world is also rooted in "old" motivations.  
Applying the past tense to the "old" anti-Semitism suggests that it has been replaced by the "new anti-Semitism": a position which is at best contentious, and at worst inaccurate.  (I recognize that this suggestion may not have been intentional, but the phrasing could still lead to this interpretation.)  
I do not consider this change to be especially contentious.  CJCurrie 19:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: (iii)  My removal of Controversy regarding new anti-Semitism centers on whether opposition to the state of Israel expresses anti-Semitism only as a symptom or by-product, or whether it is more closely linked to, and supported by, more general anti-Semitic beliefs.
I have already noted that I consider this to be a misleading dichotomy, and that I'm skeptical as to whether the sentence truly adds value to the article.  If it is to be retained, I would recommend changing "expresses" to "is associated with".  The former suggests causal responsibility; the latter would not.  CJCurrie 19:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: (iv)  My addition of In contemporary discourse, it is often used to identify a form of anti-Semitism which is perceived to differ from earlier forms of anti-Semitism.
My rationale is as follows: the term "new anti-Semitism" can be used in both a general and a specific sense.  The introductory sentence appears to make use of the general meaning: it refers to increases in anti-Semitic activity, but does not distinguish whether these are "old" or "new" in motivation.  The article should clarify that the term can be used in different ways, and that its "specific" manifestation is the source of contention.  CJCurrie 19:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: (v)  My adjustments to " A minority of secular and non-Haredi Jews also oppose the state of Israel and Zionism from a standpoint of anti-nationalism."
This change was an afterthought.  The sentence which follows names Tamar Gozansky from Maki as an example; my understanding is that Maki's position toward the State of Israel is complicated, and cannot be summarized simply as "opposition".  I chose to remove the words "the state of Israel and" to ensure accuracy.  I now believe that I can accomplish the same by changing "and" to "and/or".
As per (ii), I do not consider this point to be contentious.  CJCurrie 19:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Explaining my recent edits

message: The image shown at the top of the article is a poor example of anti-semitism.  The image itself claims the "Jews" it portrays as "counterfeit" suggesting they are, in fact not Jews.  The poster takes issue with Israel and Zionism, and claims the war was largely done in the interests of Israel and greed on the part of both America and Israel.  As much as others would wish it so, objection to the state of Israel's actions and to Zionism in general are not anti-semitism.  Since the image goes so far as to even exclude Jews from its critism, it is not an example of anti-semitism and should almost certainly be removed.  The use of said image is rather inflamatory but ultimately makes claims of new anti-semitism appear far weaker than I believe they actually are. - Kuzain 18:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking over this article more closely, I can see that it has a number of problems.  Half the section on cartoons is devoted to describing a case in which a cartoon against Sharon is claimed as anti-semitic. - Kuzain 19:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the original-research cutline that someone had added. The image is a very good example of the themes of the new anti-Semitism. The figure in red wears an American flag, Nazi symbol, and Magen David. Two figures in blue, apparently Jews wearing hats with the Magen David, peer out from behind him, the reason for the evil, smirking, with the words "No war for Israel" above their heads. Much of this symbolism is discussed in the article, so it's highly appropriate. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the image is an instance of anti-Semitism, but I'm puzzled as to why the caption was removed.  CJCurrie 00:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Add: I suspect that the "Counterfeit Jews" phrase refers to the canard about Ashkenazim being the descendants of Khazars, and not "real Jews".  Please note that I am not endorsing this belief, nor am I questioning that the poster's message and crude caricatures are a clear instance of anti-Semitism.  I'm simply unsure as to why the caption was deleted.  CJCurrie 00:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If that is what it referred to then I would agree that it fits.  I'm not well versed in anti-semitism or the beliefs related to it so it seemed confusing.  I just viewed it as demonizing Israel and claiming it manufactured the war.  And while I would agree that the claim is baseless, I don't agree that a strong dislike of Israel is the same thing as anti-semitism. - Kuzain 07:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: In fact, the image is one of the best illustrations of the main themes of the New anti-Semitism, i.e. the demonization of the State of Israel and the idea that Israeli machinations are behind everything that happens in the world and is detested by the New anti-Semites. Pecher Talk 20:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel that some of the editors on this page are getting their own views mixed up with what we're supposed to write about. We have to published what reliable published sources have said about the new anti-Semitism, no matter how strongly any particular editor disagrees with the sources (so long as they really are reputable). It's no use saying "But that's nonsense." Anyone who feels that way must write to the source objecting, but not to Wikipedia, because all we're doing is reporting; or else find an equally reputable source who says it's nonsense, and then we can quote him or her. But we can't weasel word what sources say just because some editors don't like it. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: This was one reporter writing in a magazine. Can't you find equally good opposing sources i.e. people who have studied the new anti-Semitism (or, as they see it, the lack thereof)? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Assuredly I can.  But my point is that that the term "new anti-semitism" is not always and exclusively used to refer to left-wingish anti-semitism grounded in anti-zionism.  CJCurrie 00:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, good. Please bring your sources to talk and let us know exactly what they say, so long as they say it about the "new anti-Semitism" explicitly, which is what this page is about. Once we know what the sources say, I'll be happy to collaborate with you on getting something well written and well-sourced on the page. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Image 

message: The term new anti-Semitism refers to the contemporary international resurgence of anti-Jewish incidents and attacks on Jewish symbols, as well as the acceptance of anti-Semitic beliefs and their expression in public discourse.
The term, which first came into general use in the early 1970s, is used to distinguish a form of anti-Semitism regarded as differing in its rhetoric, its professed purpose, and its place on the political spectrum from the old anti-Semitism, which is associated with the Right and is motivated by racial theory, religion, or nationalism. The new anti-Semitism is closely associated with the Left and its opposition to Zionism, and to the existence of the state of Israel as a Jewish homeland.
The problem is as follows:
(i)  Modern anti-Semitism emanates from different sources, including the radical right, the radical left and radical Islam (see sources noted above).
:You can't base such a broad statement on one article from reporter, compared to the many books by experts. You'll have to find good sources for that statement, who talk about the new anti-Semitism specifically, and then attribute your statement to those sources. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All three articles noted above make this claim.  Beyond which, are you seriously suggesting that I'm required to source a claim that the radical right is involved in anti-Semitism? CJCurrie 00:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: What does that mean, and who is your source? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't a matter of sources, it's a matter of logic.  This very article defines "new anti-Semitism" in two different ways, in the first two paragraphs.  CJCurrie 00:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, are these your own arguments, or do you have sources? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See above.  CJCurrie 00:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: No, the solution is for you to find good sources for the edits you want to make. Please stick to NOR and V. As for my revert, I'm not ignoring your citation requests. I've made a note of them and I will find sources or remove the sentences you highlighted. I can't do it right now, however. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no interest in playing "dueling sources": I'm not a newcomer to this debate, and I'm quite aware that "new anti-Semitism" is usually defined as a motivational shift within anti-Semitism.  I've provided evidence documenting an alternate usage, however, and I've also noted a flaw in the logic of the introduction.  I've provided a source for the first point, while the second is not a matter of research as such.  Your suggestion that I "find good sources" seems to miss the point entirely.  CJCurrie 00:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How can it miss the point? You appear not to have read any of the source material on the new anti-Semitism, yet you want to edit the page, based on no knowledge, just your own opinions. That's not good enough. Please find some decent sources (not The Australian), and come to the talk page with them and with the points you want to make. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rest assured that it pains me to use a Murdoch paper as source material, but the fact remains that The Australian is a "quality" journal (perhaps the only one of its type in his empire).  In any case, my comments on the logical flow of the introduction are unrelated to sources.  I've said numerous times that the introduction to article uses two definitions of "new anti-Semitism".  I'm still awaiting your response, and I would reiterate my request that you maintain a level of decorum.  CJCurrie 01:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another problem with the introduction

message: There is clearly an ongoing dispute about the introduction to this article and its sources, accompanied by quasi-edit warring. Currie and myself have made every effort to provide numerous reliable sources for our edits. This tag was reverted once already. There is clearly an ongoing dispute. btw I am not attempting to engage in 'hit and run tagging', as was suggested in the revert description. TreveXtalk 23:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed tag 

message: I have removed the following sentence because it is predicated in the assumption that all criticism of Israel is anti-semitic. This has already been discussed above but no source or defence for this sentence has been forthcoming.
:Controversy regarding new anti-Semitism centers on whether opposition to the state of Israel promotes anti-Semitism only as a symptom or by-product, or whether it is more closely linked to, and supported by, more general anti-Semitic beliefs.
TreveXtalk 23:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed sentence "Controversy regarding new anti-semitism is..." 

message: To SV:
My point about the problem with "associated" stands. The term is misleading and use of it reads like an attempt to condemn by association. 
Do you have any problem with:
"The concept is directed largely at those elements of "the Left" that oppose Zionism and the existence of the state of Israel as a Jewish homeland."
:Hmmm ... "the concept is directed at" sounds as though it doesn't really exist. The point of that sentence is that it emanates from the Left, not the Right, and that is one of its distinguishing features. I'll try to think of different wording. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions

message: I want to clarify that I was careful not to violate the 3RR, and that I'm not impressed with the outburst at the top of the "Disgraceful" section.  CJCurrie 01:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how you couldn't have violated it, given you were reverting against me, and I would violate it if I continued editing. A "revert" is undoing any editor's work, not just reverting to an earlier version of a page. See WP:3RR. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: But now you keep undoing the new header! A revert for the purposes of 3RR is undoing any other editor's work on a page. If you do that more than three times in 24 hours, even if you're making different edits each time, and whether or not the undoing is in whole or in part, you can be blocked. Do not remove this header again. This section is not about the contents of the article. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But now you keep undoing the new header!
Er ... yes, and I gave my reasons each time.  Your point is unclear.  CJCurrie 01:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: My point was that editing a page with you is an unpleasant experience, because you don't write properly, don't use sources properly, revert war, insist on having the last word, don't know the subject matter, don't seem to want to know it, post endlessly to talk, don't know what 3RR means even though you're an admin, and keep returning to tweak your own posts causing lots of edit conflicts. Is my point clearer now? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A revert for the purposes of 3RR is undoing any other editor's work on a page. If you do that more than three times in 24 hours, even if you're making different edits each time, and whether or not the undoing is in whole or in part, you can be blocked.
I believe "undoing any other editor's work on a page" may be open to some interpretation.  I've taken a more liberal interpretation of this phrase in the past, as have most of my interlocutors.  If you insist on a narrow definition, I'll bear that in mind for our future discussions.  I did not consciously violate the 3RR, one way or the other.  
I'm familiar with the provisions for blocking, and I also know that this isn't always the "first resort" punishment.  I purposely refrained from enforcing the blocking provision some time ago, when there was some confusion as to interpretation.  CJCurrie 01:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: CJC, when you keep returning to edit your talk-page comments,  it means that people trying either to reply to you or to someone else keep getting edit conflicts. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: If this reverting continues, I'm going to report any violations. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Don't abide by a broad or narrow definition. Just abide by what it says on the policy page. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I have no idea what you mean now. A revert is undoing another editor's work, not just reverting to a previous version. I think that's the third time I've written that on this page. If you want to change policy, do it on that talk page. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: No one said it was! Stop going on. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Homey, you've just done it again, not only restoring your material, but an outdated version of it, so that you've restored the wrong ref system again. If Chesler etc are there only as a footnote, Klug can be footnoted too. I don't want to report anyone for 3RR, but I'm going to if you don't stop. I've held off all day so as not to violate it, yet the two of you plough on as though the policy doesn't exist. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 3RR

message: Homey, I've left a note on your talk page, but in case you don't see it, every time you delete material (or re-add your own), you're reverting, even if you also add something else. That is, it doesn't have to be an actual revert, or be the same material every time: complex, partial reverts are reverts too. I haven't counted edits, but I'm pretty sure both you and CJC have violated 3RR by now, given the amount of deleting that's gone on. If you haven't, you're on the verge of it. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Homey, you've just done it again, not only restoring your material, but an outdated version of it, so that you've restored the wrong ref system again. If Chesler etc are there only as a footnote, Klug can be footnoted too. I don't want to report anyone for 3RR, but I'm going to if you don't stop. I've held off all day so as not to violate it, yet the two of you plough on as though the policy doesn't exist. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverting

message: (edit conflict as usual)
Given your past concerns about style, why have you reverted to this?
Critics of the concept contend that surging hostility towards Zonism and the State of Israel does not necessarily translate into hostility towards the Jews.
:Please sign your posts. I reverted to that because my main concern is to keep Homey's and CJC's original research off the page. However, I agree that the other intro ending is tidier, so if you look at my recent edit, I've gone back to that. [unsigned]
Just a suggestion: if you're going to advise others to sign their posts, it might be advisable to sign your own posts.  CJCurrie 23:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question for SlimVirgin

message: Homey, you're engaged in pointless original research now, pointless because it has no hope of staying on the page. Please provide a source for the edit that the term existed in the 70s and was then revived by Foxman and Chesler. And of course Gable was talking about the new AS. Don't delete sources just because they don't fit your thesis, please. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I know about the 1974 book. I was the one who added the link. But I would like a source showing it was revived by Foxman and Chesler. As for your other claim, that it's used to describe Islamophobia, I'm speechless at this kind of editing, and in the intro too. That's all I'm going to say about this. It's clear that no serious debate or research is possible. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: How common is that usage compared to the common usage? Jayjg (talk) 03:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: How often though? Especially in comparison to the common meaning? Jayjg (talk) 03:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: These paltry number of sources are using the phrase to mean something entirely different from the subject of this article.  If Gloria Vanderbilt proclaims that "Pink is the new black", do we insert in the intro of the Black article that Pink is also considered to be Black? Jayjg (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Except that it breaks down when examined.  The phrase "the new Black" is used about any number of colors/things, and used to indicate that the item being described is analogous to Black.  That is also how the very small number of examples of "Islamophobia is the New anti-Semitism" is used.  However, that is not what the term "The New anti-Semitism" means as it is used in common parlance (i.e. the 180,000 Google hits); rather, as in this article, it is used to describe a specific phenomenon, not to make an analogy between that phenomenon and anything else. Jayjg (talk) 23:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: OR

message: First, thank you for your refreshingly constructive contributions to this dialogue.  I hope that discussions between us will be based on mutual respect, and on serious concern for the quality of this article.
I wonder if it might be advisable to adjust (not delete) the introductory passage, in light of the 2002-03 European Union report and related documents.  Consider:
(i)  What is described as "new anti-Semitism" has been blamed for "the contemporary international resurgence of anti-Jewish incidents and attacks on Jewish symbols, as well as the acceptance of anti-Semitic beliefs and their expression in public discourse." (as evidenced by the sources you've listed)
(ii)  Published reports, including the EU's 2002-03 document, have blamed what is called the "new anti-Semitism" for contributing to an increase in anti-Semitic activity.
(iii)  However, published reports including the EU's 2002-03 document have also blamed the "old" anti-Semitism for contributing to an increase in anti-Semitic activity.
Therefore, would it not better to indicate the NAS as (i) a contributing factor to the resurgence and (ii) identified by some authors as being the resurgence, rather than (iii) being the resurgence as a point of fact?
Would it also be advisable to have this sentence appear after the definition of NAS as representing a motivational change in AS?  
Thank you, CJCurrie 01:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the interests of time, could you just add your content here so we can see how it reads? I apologize for the short and terse reply.  —Viriditas | Talk 02:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll work on this and get back to you.  No need to apologize; thank you for the civility of your reply.  CJCurrie 02:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question for Viriditas

message: Why was the amply sourced passage I added to the opening on alternate meanings of "new anti-Semitism" removed? Homey 02:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See below.  Jayjg (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternate meanings 

message: I think mediation is necessary as there seems to be a fundamental disagreement over basic questions such as whether NAS is a "majority view" or not amongst other questions. Does anyone disagree?Homey 02:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I disagree. You need to stop deleting sourced material. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Because it should be possible for intelligent, informed adults to cooperate without the help of a third party. Because I'm astonished by your editing and your promotion of your own ideology over what the literature says. Because I'm very depressed by it, and no longer have the stomach to engage with you. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It's unclear to me why you're attributing this to Foxman and Dershowitz, when the term long-preceded them, and is used by many more people than them (including academics).  Trying to pin this on Foxman and Dershowitz is an attempt to discredit the phenomenon; please desist. Jayjg (talk) 03:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The precise quote reads Foxman, Dershowitz et al.  Cheers, CJCurrie 03:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Huh? I've removed seven sourced items?  I have no idea what you're talking about.  --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 04:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I was thinking of Jayg when I wrote that. Anway, it seems I removed one source and I believe it was accidental. Conversely, seven sources I provided have been removed.Homey 04:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the onus is on you to seek consensus, not make unilateral changes. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 04:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Was it under a different id?  I see no edits of yours prior to today. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 04:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation 

message: In his edit of 03:32 16 April, Jayjg accused Homey of removing citations.
It may be noted that the only citation which Jayjg restored to the page was critical of the term "new anti-Semitism".  I assume it was removed by virtue of being superfluous in relation to other sources.
Jayjg, by contrast, removed seven different citations through his reversion.
Perhaps he would wish to comment on this unusual state of affairs.  CJCurrie 03:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please assume good faith, when you don't it understanably tends to breed resentment.  It is perfectly acceptable to remove citations that do not qualify as Reliable and reputable.  The sources that you removed however, seemed to be acceptable for the article so I have trouble understanding what your reasoning was for removing it.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it would help if you didn't take a sarcastic tone and perhaps consider the possibility that the other side has a point.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It does not show good faith when you suggest that Jayjg is somehow being hipocritical, they are diffeent sources and thus have different qualifications for reliablity.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The sources you gave (all of which were opinion pieces except for a highly dubious one) were an extreme minority usage describing a different phenomenon; the difference between The "New anti-Semitism" and the New "anti-Semitism" is quite obvious.  Islamophobia has its own article; this article is about "The New anti-Semitism".  Jayjg (talk) 22:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: They've been addressed already; the citations were an extreme minority usage referring to Islamophobia, not The New anti-Semitism. Also, they were accompanied by a number of other highly POV edits. Jayjg (talk) 22:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: You've only found 4 examples, one from the minutes of a meeting.  There are hundreds of examples of the conventional usage, including full-length book treatments.  Moreover, as said, it refers to a different phenomenon, treated in its own article. Jayjg (talk) 22:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: One usage in an opinion piece is not "Ha'aretz". Jayjg (talk) 22:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: You need a mediator after one day of editing?  That seems premature. Jayjg (talk) 23:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then stop reverting and suggest a compromise. If you are unable to suggest a compromise (and you have thus far failed to do so) then mediation is the sensible option unless you think we should take this to the ArbComm and have an interim injunction barring all parties from editing this article. Homey 02:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You started editing this article yesterday, after it had achieved a longstanding consensus, and tried to revert-war in massive changes, violating 3RR, then demanded immediate negotiation when that didn't work.  It looks to me like you haven't even tried the Talk: page approach yet. Jayjg (talk) 03:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: As I've said above, just because Gloria Vanderbilt said "Pink is the new Black", it doesn't mean we put a statement in the intro of the Black article stating "According to some, Pink is also Black". Jayjg (talk) 03:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure what you're suggesting, nor what sources you are using to back up your suggestion. Jayjg (talk) 04:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: There is only one commonly used meaning for the term "New anti-Semitism", just as there is only one commonly used meaning for the colour "Black", even though many have asserted that Pink, Blue, Orange, etc. are all the new Black. Jayjg (talk) 23:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, it does (see above also).  "The New black" is intended as an analogy, as is the "alternative definition" you are promoting.  However, in common parlance "The New anti-Semitism" is describing a phenomenon, not making an analogy.  That is precisely the problem here. This is the article about "Black", not about various analogies used in relation to Black. Jayjg (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More irony? 

message: Why have certain editors restored the phrase, "the Left and its opposition to Zionism", when the premise of the phrase is demonstrably false?  CJCurrie 04:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources refer to it. Jayjg (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Arguments to the contrary from reliable sources count; "evidence" to the contrary is original research. Jayjg (talk) 22:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Does the Tikkun reference discuss the New anti-Semitism or Anti-Semitism from the left? Jayjg (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: A clearer wording would be ... that the recent rise of anti-Semitism is associated with Left-wing opposition to Zionism.... Jayjg (talk) 23:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: On another matter

message: The left-wing asserts that the accusation of "New anti-Semitism" is used to stifle legitimate criticism of the actions of Zionists.  The right-wing (neo-Nazis, white supremacists) etc. asserts that the accusation of "anti-Semitism" is used to stifle legitimate criticism of the actions of Jews, who they call "Zionists".  Food for thought. Jayjg (talk) 00:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See the Islamophobia article under "criticism of the concept" (at least for all but the "Islamicised" part though I have heard that as well).Homey 02:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting parallel 

message: I have argued on several occasions that "the Left and its opposition to Zionism" is inappropriate phrasing (see "On Another Matter", above, for a detailed explanation).  
Jayjg has recently proposed that the current wording on the article page could by changed to "[...] that the recent rise of anti-Semitism is associated with Left-wing opposition to Zionism [...]".  I have no fundamental objections to this wording, although I believe "elements of the Left that oppose Zionism" may be less ambigious.
I propose that we choose one of these two options as a replacement for the current wording.  Either option is acceptable to me.  What say others?  CJCurrie 00:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it yields this interpretation, which is why I'm willing to endorse it.  CJCurrie 00:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would go with "elements of the Left that oppose Zionism" but I'm not massively bothered either way. My main worry is that alternative perspectives should be represented properly (NAS as a "mutation" or not different from old AS etc.) TreveXtalk 09:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that phrasing would be somwhat ambiguous as it doesn't illustrate that NAS is really only associated with the left.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Moshe, if what you're saying is that NAS is only associated with the left, I don't quite agree. There are numerous perspectives on what NAS and the left theory is just one, even if it is arguably the most prominent. See, for example, Daniel Pipes' summary of some of the trends . Some even deny it is anything new. Ariel Sharon said that "What we are facing in Europe is an anti-Semitism that has always existed and it really is not a new phenomenon."  Others, e.g. Jonathan Sacks, have described it as a "mutation". TreveXtalk 17:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I shouldn't have said only, but I still think that the general consensus is that what makes it new is that it is primarily associated with the left, which is a group that has traditionally been disassociated from AS.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes of course you're right only a few fringe wackos think that NAS is associated with the left, which is why every radical left wing organization from Dissident Voice to Counterpunch has to devote articles to arguing why the left wing isn't anti-semitic.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resolving one particular dispute 

message: There was an interesting point raised above in the discussion, namely that Muslims play an active role in the recent wave of anti-Semitism. Muslim anti-Semitism nowadays is also "new" in the sense that it is different from the traditional Muslim anti-Semitism. Over ages, Muslims treated Jews with enormous contempt; however, recently, in a large part due to the influence of Western anti-Semitism rooted in Christianity, Muslim anti-Semitism has changed to the one of demonization and here it shares company with the new left-wing anti-Semitism. Bernard Lewis, for example, makes this point: "The main negative quality attributed to Jews in Turkish and Arab folklore was that they were cowardly and unmilitary—very contemptible qualities in a martial society... that may help us to understand the bewilderment and horror at the Israeli victories in 1948 and after... The Western form of anti-Semitism — the cosmic, satanic version of Jew hatred — provided solace to wounded feelings. The growth of European-style anti-Semitism in the Arab world derived in the main from this feeling of humiliation and the need therefore to ascribe to the Jews a role very different from their traditional role in Arab folklore and much closer to that of the anti-Semitic prototypes... By now the familiar themes of European anti-Semitism—the blood libel, the protocols of Zion, the international Jewish conspiracy, and the rest—have become standard fare in much of the Arab world, in the schoolroom, the pulpit, the media, and even on the Internet." Lewis's article is titled "The New Anti-Semitism", so it should be without question that Lewis sees the new kind of Muslim anti-Semitism as indeed a part of the New Anti-Semitism. Pecher Talk 21:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know all the writers who discuss this phenomenon include the Muslim strain of it. I don't think anyone is suggesting we ignore that and focus exclusively on the Left-wing strain. Jayjg (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's true, but it appears that this aspect of the New anti-Semitism receives virtually no treatment in "The nature of the new anti-Semitism" and in the intro. Pecher Talk 17:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New anti-Semitism and Muslims

message: from OED 2nd ed pub 2002
in their entry on pseduoscience they cite:
"1902 Encycl. Brit. XXV. 472/1 This was the pseudo-scientific note of the new anti-Semitism, the theory which differentiated it from the old religious Jew-hatred." Mccready 08:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mccready, here's a policy you may not be aware of: Wikipedia:Harassment. In part, it forbids "Following an editor to another article to continue disruption (also known as wikistalking)", and states "The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor."  You have taken your conflict with SlimVirgin at Animal Rights and expanded it to the Lauren Slater article, in which you showed absolutely no interest until SlimVirgin began editing there.  You have now wikistalked her to this article, and to the WP:RFPP section regarding this article.  Please desist, as this policy is taken quite seriously. Jayjg (talk) 16:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It might be somewhat useful in an article about various uses of the phrase "New anti-Semitism".  This, however, is an article about the phenomenon, and only peripherally discusses the terminology, so its usefulness seems limited. Jayjg (talk) 19:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Nowadays some people attempt to characterize the difference as "Anti-Semitism" vs. "Anti-Judaism".  Others describe it as "Racial" vs. "Religious" anti-Semitism. Others see the distinction as specious. Jayjg (talk) 21:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1902 - new anti-semitism 

message: as CJC and you haven't read the literature, I'm wondering how you can know what it says
I finished reading the 1974 book "The New Anti-Semitism" earlier today.  The work was more-or-less what I've come to expect from the ADL: some valid and provocative research, and some rather more dubious assertions.  I thought the seriousness of the entire venture may have been compromised when the authors criticized Woody Allen's films as perpetuating Jewish stereotypes, and hence as contributing to anti-Semitic thought in the US.  
I was also troubled by the borderline anti-Arab racism in much of the book: one chapter was called "Arabs and pro-Arabs", and much of the book's rhetoric is directed against "Arabs" (as opposed to "Arab anti-Semites" or "Arab opponents of Israel").  I don't think that a respectable book published today would include such references; I hope not, anyway.
For our present purposes, though, the book is most notable for how it defines the NAS.
The New Anti-Semitism defines "new anti-Semitism" as (i) new in the sense of being contemporary, and also (ii) new in the sense of being qualitatively different from what came before -- not exclusively one or the other.
It describes the nAS as combining "old" racial/religious motivations and modern anti-Zionist outlooks.  Most notably, it does not identify the term exclusively -- or even primarily -- with the left.  Much of the book focuses on figures such as Gerald L.K. Smith (yeah, the same one) and right-wing black nationalists; there's even a chapter describing recent permutations in the radical right, arguing that it became more openly anti-Semitic in the 1970s.  There are also some passages against the Communist Party and the Socialist Workers Party and some information on anti-Semitism in the Arab world, but the book emphatically does not focus solely on these themes.
In other words, it does not use the term NAS in the sense of its present usage, and its relevance to the present debate can probably be considered marginal at best.  CJCurrie 04:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reading the sources

message: Hi all, I just saw this dispute on the mediation page. I'm not a mediator but is there a specific point that users are in dispute about? Maybe I can help reach consensus on that? --Zleitzen 04:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hi All

message: I'm wondering if it might be more accurate to add the word "variously" below (added for illustration):
:Proponents of the new anti-Semitism argue that it is associated variously with the Left, 
anti-Americanism, opposition to Zionism and the existence of the state of Israel as a Jewish homeland,  the anti-globalization movement, Islamism, and what Professor Todd Endelman of the University of Michigan has called "Third Worldism."  
The reason is some of the sources I've read talk of anti-Zionism but not of the left. Do all the sources claim "the new anti-Semitism" is associated with all these things or do different sources say different things?
Also, it seems to me that the argument that anti-Zionism is associated with "the New anti-Semitism" is more consistently argued than the claim that "the left" is associated with it so shouldn't anti-Zionism be listed first? No, not all anti-Zionists are left wing, indeed, traditional Muslims and Islamic fundamentalists tend to be conservative on every other issue and are not part of "the left" per se even if leftists and they go to some of the same demos or even organize demos jointly. Some traditionalists may have formed an alliance with "the left" (for instance in the case of RESPECT in the UK) but that doesn't make them left wing. Homey 12:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All the sources say it is associated with the left. Most of them then add the list above, but some emphasize one aspect more than the others, and some don't mention them all. But they all mention the left, because that's where it's coming from, so the word "variously" would be misleading. The only thing not associated with the left in the list is Islamism, and I really only added that because someone on the talk page wanted it. Some of the sources do mention Islamism or radicalized Islamic or Islamist youth, and some don't. Crucially, it's the Islamist-left alliance that tends to make Islamist anti-Semitism merge into the new anti-Semitism, but I have more reading to do before I can say much more than that. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore even though Islamists might have found some common ground with different individuals and organizations, there is nothing novel about anti-semitism eminating from Islamic society.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Free free to remove Islamism if you feel it complicates the issue too much for the intro. I did hesitate before I added it. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No I think it is necessary to mention it since it is important to see how it relates to other anti-semitic elements.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Every source that I have read so far says that, yes. Some use the term "new anti-Semitism" and some "contemporary anti-Semitism," and some add the Islamism factor. I have found one who says that the right has become parasitical on it, though out of different motives. I'm in the middle of reading more widely, as you put it, but you might try the same thing. If you did, you'd see for yourself what the sources are saying, though I know that you know the intro is correct. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Variously" is misleading; please don't add it again. And how can it be an "attempt by the Israel government"? That's drivel. Homey, as many of the sources I've added are academics, could you find some higher quality sources too to support your edits. I think that would go a long way to solving the dispute. If you're going to rely on things like counterpunch, when we're quoting well-known professors of history, you should recognize the weakness of your position. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I didn't say anything about Chesler. I was thinking, for example, of Endelman and Bauer. Could you please produce a couple of academic sources to support your views? As for Ali, I've left the material in, as you wished, but I've named and quoted him so that readers can see who said it, where they said it, and what they said. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It's banned User:Zordrac aka banned User:Internodeuser. His theory is that, because I ask for sources for the  names on List of British Jews, I must be a member of Stormfront out to ensure that the list contains only "real Jews" so that when neo-Nazis decide to attack the people listed, they don't inadvertently attack someone who only has, say, a Jewish grandfather. Zordrac's inability to reason from A to B without spinning off into a thousand conspiracy theories is not unrelated to the banning of (so far) two of his accounts. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand, why would you actually suggest that his theory and reasoning is weird bullsh*t that L. Ron Hubbard would have difficulty dreaming up? After all we all know that there are stormfront secret agents on wikipedia that make sure only real jews get attacked.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well Moshe, now you're going to have to explain exactly how you know that. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 09:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course now I'll have to kill you.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't give the people on this talk page that satisfaction.  SlimVirgin (talk) 09:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: Hello, I've taken this case for mediation as requested by User:TreveX.  While the Mediation Cabal is informal, and my suggestions would not be binding, as an uninvolved third party, I will endeavor to suggest a refactored introduction.
For the record, I will be examining the dispute based on the arguments presented on the talk page, and studying proposed cites in forming my recommendation.  If you wish to comment, or provide additional evidence, please do so on the case page.  Coren 03:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Mediation Cabal]]

message: I'm fine with the current intro as well.  Should the disputed notice be removed?  CJCurrie 22:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed?

message: Jayjg has tried to truncate this quotation:
*""cynical ploy on the part of the Israeli Government to seal off the Zionist state from any criticism of its regular and consistent brutality against the Palestinians."
to
*""cynical ploy on the part of the Israeli Government to seal off the Zionist state from any criticism."
Thus trying to remove from the introduction the actual criticsm Israel's critics are making, in a quotation about Israel trying to stifle criticism. I find this very ironic and, if I didn't know better, I'd think Jayjg was an anti-Zionist trying to prove Tariq Ali's point. I don't think removing nine words has any impact on making the intro less succinct - all it does is dull Ali's point and alter its meaning - Ali doesn't say Isreal is trying to protect itself from all crticism, just that concerning its policies towards Palestinians. Jayjg's edit has the effect of exaggerating and distorting Ali's comment as well as diffusing its focus on Isreal's Palestinian policy. Frankly, it strikes me that the only justification for removing those words is to "seall off the Zionist state from any criticism of its regular and consistent brutality against the Palestinians" (thus proving Ali's point) as well as to make Ali seem credible by making his criticism look overly broad. Please do not alter the quotation again. Homey 12:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored Jayjg's version and will keep doing so because Wikipedia is not a soapbox, especially for anti-Israeli bigots. If you want to quote Tariq Ali's views on the Arab-Israeli conflict, choose another article; this one is on the New anti-Semitism, so let's keep to the record. Pecher Talk 13:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Exactly as Pecher stated. This article is about the New anti-Semitism, not the Arab-Israeli conflict, and it's certainly not a soapbox for anti-Israel rhetoric.  Your quote from him already makes him look radical and foolish enough, there's no point in compounding the error by letting him fulminate at even greater length, particularly when it is inappropriate for this article and especially for an introduction. Jayjg (talk) 16:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, and regarding the "nine words", the quotation is already 18 words, and you wanted to make it 50% larger.  There are no other quotes in the introduction that exceed 5 words, and even that one is from a critic of the concept.  The introduction is not the place for lengthy quotations of any sort. Jayjg (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: You seem to have misread the comments, which make it clear that the reason the latter parts were excluded have to do with it being too lengthy for an intro, not on the topic of the article, and inflammatory rhetoric to boot.  Jayjg (talk) 00:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ironic editing? 

message: I've added my version of the intro on the Mediation page. Raphael1 20:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  alternative intro on the mediation page 

message: Homey, you've violated 3RR again. Please take the opportunity to revert yourself. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  3RR 

message: The difficulty here is that HOTR and CJCurrie want to say that there is no such thing as "new anti-Semitism". They can find sources like Tariq Ali to support them — who is, as you put it very well, part of the debate, rather than a source who is simply speaking about the debate — but they can't find anyone serious to support them. The reason for that is that all the authoritative sources agree that it is a real phenomenon and also that it emanates from the left. I stand to be corrected, of course, and still hope that Homey or CJCurrie can find notable, scholarly sources from relevant fields, because then we could fashion a more intelligent article, which is above all what I would like to see. But the problem is that Homey and CJCurrie will claim that any scholar who states that new anti-Semitism is a real phenomenon, and that it stems from the left, is by definition part of the debate and representing one side only, no matter how eminent they are, because Homey and CJC will not shift from the view that the new anti-Semitism doesn't really exist, and that insofar as it might, it doesn't come from the left. We could drop them into an entire library full of books that show it does exist; they would simply dismiss them as evidence of how good Israel or Zionists are at propaganda. In other words, they're operating within a closed system of thought. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response

message: I suggest that the intro be shrunk. Why do we need to go into argumentation about it above the fold? It looks crappy (all those footnotes!), and it doesn't really add anything concrete to the reader's comprehension of the material; it's not sufficiently in-depth to actually impart any useful information, so the reader still needs to dig deeper into the article to get a good sense of the controversy.  I propose that the the paragraphs starting "Proponents" and "opponents" be eliminated; perhaps they might be replaced with a single sentence mentioning the existance and intensity of the controversy; examples belong in the main text. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. --Denis Diderot 10:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The intro