Talk:New antisemitism/Archive 9

message: May I suggest that the current section be rewritten?  Epstein and Forster's main argument is that the "new anti-Semitism" was highlighted by opposition to Israel: this should be emphasized in a summary of their text.  (The peripheral arguments can also be mentioned, but in their proper place.)  CJCurrie 03:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The edits by CJCurrie improved the paragraph.  I made one minor change for style. The next paragraph, on the 1980s, could now use some work.  It talks about the New Left, which was essentially dead in the US by the Reagan years.  Were the writers cited for the 1980s writing about current events, or retrospectively, when they mentioned the "New Left"? --John Nagle 05:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Jesus Christ Superstar thing was unclear. Were they offering it as an example of the new anti-Semitism, and if so, what was their argument? SlimVirgin (talk) 08:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Haven't you read the book? There are four pages on "Jesus Christ Superstar", including long quotes from the show. --John Nagle 18:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: What Epstein and Forster were complaining about back then is that it was reviving the old "Jews killed Jesus" thing, in a medium that reached a young, hip new audience. That was the "new" part; the old anti-Semitism got a makeover and they didnt't like it. Pages 90 to 102 are mostly about that musical.  Some people were really wound up about that issue back then. --John Nagle 21:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, that may be so, but it has nothing to do with the topic of this article. Jayjg (talk) 02:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 1974 book

message: The new header lists his name and not his argument, whereas the other section headers try to sum up the content. What would people say the basic argument or position in the Finkelstein section now is? SlimVirgin (talk) 08:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That "new anti-Semitism" is a political argument, and is not really about fighting anti-Semitism.  CJCurrie 21:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could something like that be the header? E.g. "The 'new anti-Semitism' is just a political ploy." SlimVirgin (talk) 22:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Finkelstein

message: Over at Anti-Defamation League#Claims of a "new" anti-Semitism, there's some key information we don't have in this article:
* In 1974, ADL national leaders Arnold Forster and Benjamin R. Epstein published a book called The New Anti-Semitism 
* In 1982, ADL national leader Nathan Perlmutter and his wife, Ruth Ann Perlmutter, released a book entitled The Real Anti-Semitism in America (New York, 1982). 
* In 2003, ADL's national director Abraham Foxman published Never Again? The Threat of the New Anti-Semitism (San Francisco, 2003)
In this article, it isn't made clear that those books all came from ADL officials.   That's clear in the ADL article, and it needs to be made equally clear here.   --John Nagle 18:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Creating" new anti-Semitism? The ADL's most significant function is tracking and exposing anti-Semitism, it's no surprise that various ADL leaders publish books about it. John, I must again strongly remind you that Wikipedia is not a muckraking investigative newspaper, trying to uncover secret plots and conspiracies. Jayjg (talk) 02:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is from Finkelstein. Perhaps it can go in his section. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: "Creating" presumably not in the sense of creating the attitude, but creating the framework, the model, the construct describing the attitude. Of course, whether they did even that is another matter. - Jmabel | Talk 21:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The role of the ADL in creating "new anti-Semitism" 

message: I've removed the sentence on Jesus Christ Superstar:
Forster and Epstein's book also contains extensive criticism of pop-culture works that the authors believed were anti-Semitic, notably the 1973 Broadway musical Jesus Christ Superstar, because it blamed Jews for the death of Jesus (p. 93).
It doesn't appear to have anything to do with the topic of this article, which is quite lengthy as is. Perhaps it might go in an article about the book, or about Jesus Christ Superstar, if you really think it's very notable. Jayjg (talk) 02:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's properly cited, and it shows what was considered "New anti-semitism" back then, so it should stay in.  As the history section, which is mostly factual, becomes more comprehensive and better organized, we may be able to cut down some of the more argumentative sections further down and get some space back.  It's worthwhile to work on "who said what when". Looking at the historical sequence of events makes this issue clearer. The 70s-80s period is better now.  Thanks. --John Nagle 04:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It may be properly cited, but it has nothing to do with the topic of this article. All sorts of things have been called "New anti-Semitism" at one time or another, including the racial anti-Semitism of the early to mid 20th century; however, this is an article about the modern concept of "New anti-Semitism", not anything that has ever been called "New anti-Semitism". As stated before, this article is already quite lengthy; please only include items which are on the topic of this article. Also, please avoid insulting edit summaries which refer to my edits as "vandalism"; that's a serious violation of WP:CIVIL. Jayjg (talk) 14:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is attempting to redefine "new anti-Semitism".  We've clearly established that claims of "new anti-Semitism", covering a wide range of perceived offenses, have been verifiably reported by reliable sources each decade since the 1960s.  Just because some of those claims may now look silly in retrospect is not cause to remove them from Wikipedia. The historical cultural references help to put the issue in perspective.  The article already had references from the 1940s, so the claim that this is an article only about the "modern concept" is demonstrably false.  --John Nagle 17:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, you're attempting to re-define New anti-Semitism. The academics who described this subject talk about a key set of indicators and actors, and refer to events in the 90s and 2000s; we've clearly established this. The fact that someone used the phrase 30 or 50 years ago to refer to something else is irrelevant for the purpose of this article. Please stop trying to insert prochronisms into this article. Jayjg (talk) 17:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: John, this article is about the wave of anti-Semitism that almost all writers say began to sweep across Europe in the late 1990s/early 2000s. The mistake you repeatedly make on this page is to tell us what your personal opinions are, when all we're supposed to discuss and write about is what relevant, reliable sources say about this concept, not about some other. Also, I asked you before what you meant by the Jesus Christ Superstar thing "putting the issue in perspective," but you didn't reply and now you've said it again. What issue, and in perspective in what sense? SlimVirgin (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus Christ Superstar 

message: One problem with the history section is that it jumps back and forth between European and US political issues, which tend to differ, without noting the differences clearly.  The Trotskyists never had any real traction in the US.  Abba Eban is cited as talking about the "new left" in the mid-1980s, quoted from "Anti-Semitism and Zionism: Selected Marxist Writings".  But the quote doesn't make it clear whose "new left" he's talking about.  US issues were quite different.  Also, the role of the USSR in all this needs to be mentioned more.  Several of the references mention the USSR, which was providing substantial aid to some Arab countries (especially Egypt) during that period, as being behind various anti-Israel actions.  ("Nowhere in the world today is anti-Semitism masquerading under the guise of anti-Zionism more pervasively than in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" - Forster and Epstein, (1974) p. 221.)  So there's a substantial Cold War aspect to this.  --John Nagle 05:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that the Forster and Epstein's work was perhaps a pre-cursor to the modern concept, but it's clearly not about the modern concept. Indeed, how could it be - New anti-Semitism describes events and trends that have mostly occurred in the 1990s and 2000s! This article needs to focus on the modern concept as it is currently deliniated, and studied by academics and other experts; older works which caught very early signs of the trend might be mildly interesting for historical reasons, but the article really can't spend huge amounts of time discussing them as well. Perhaps some of that material could be added to the Anti-Semitism article. Jayjg (talk) 14:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "New anti-Semitism describes events and trends that have mostly occurred in the 1990s and 2000s!" - that's a position statement and arguably original research.  Actually, it looks from the cites like somebody (usually an official of the ADL) has relaunched "new anti-Semitism" each decade since at least the 1960s.  It's branding, like "New Tide". A classic line in the advertising business is "The two most valuable words you can ever use in the headline are "free" and "new." You cannot always use "free," but you can nearly always use "new" if you try hard enough." --John Nagle 16:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: No, that's what all the academics say, so it's hardly original research. What is original research is the conspiracy theory you are promoting that the Elders of Zion/ADL are promoting a "New anti-Semitism" brand. Jayjg (talk) 16:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: By the way, when Wistrich etc. talk about New anti-Semitism, is that part of the ADL conspiracy?  When longtime left-wing activist Chesler starts noting anti-Semitism among her leftist friends, is it because she is in the pay of the ADL? Jayjg (talk) 17:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: John, all the academics who write about this agree that the concept this article discusses started in the 1990s/2000s, so that's not OR. The theory you're applying is Norman Finkelstein's. It's fine to add that to his section, but you can't diffuse it throughout the entire article as though it's a fact. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History issues

message: Surprising. Indeed surprising. How come there is no mention of what Lewis's definition of Anti-Semitism is? And that what Anti-semtism is NOT. Who wrote this section? Please let me know. --Aminz 11:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You've already had this discussion, over a month ago: please see #Lewis and Taguieff above. Perhaps you forgot. In any event, can you please explicitly state exactly which sentences or paragraphs you think violate NPOV, and why? Jayjg (talk) 14:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jayjg, may I ask who wrote that summary. I have a few questions for that person. Thanks very much. --Aminz 19:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Aminz, why do you want to know? I suspect it was SlimVirgin, since (as I noted) you discussed it (above) with her at the time. Anyway, please explicitly state exactly which sentences or paragraphs you think violate NPOV, and why; otherwise the tag will have to go. Jayjg (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Aminz, we discussed this before. This article is about the concept of the new anti-Semitism, so we are only interested in what Lewis has to say about that specifically. We can't go into his views in general; there isn't enough space for one thing but they also aren't relevant or, insofar as they are, he explains them himself in the article cited. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: When he talks about anti-Semitism in the modern world, he's almost certainly talking about what he calls the third wave or new anti-Semitism. But it would depend on the context. Do you have an example? SlimVirgin (talk) 07:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I would say it refers to any kind of anti-Semitism: religious, racial, or ideological. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, I would say it refers to any kind of anti-Semitism. But I don't see the point of the question. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I didn't say that. Perhaps you could just make your point rather than asking me questions. The reason I left that quote out of the section is that other people have said the same thing, so it's not part of Lewis's unique argument about new anti-Semitism (as opposed to anti-Semitism in general), which is that he regards it as a third wave. We can't repeat everything that every source we use has ever said. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't agree with adding Lewis to the intro, because we don't cite anyone else's particular views, but I've added something to his section to reflect your concerns. Does that help? SlimVirgin (talk) 09:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Lewis is very notable as a historian of Islam. What makes him notable on the topic of New anti-Semitism? Jayjg (talk) 14:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, you keep trying to insert in various places that Lewis said that "criticism of the state of Israel or Zionism" is not necessarily anti-Semitism. But all the sources would agree with that, so it's inappropriate to attribute it only to him. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: What makes you think it is not correct? Lewis holds the view that NAS is ideological anti-Semitism, based on opposition to the State of Israel and involving the demonization of Israel/Jews and the holding of them to standards not applied to others. Those are his two key criteria. The lead describes proponents' views in general; we can't get into the specifics of what each person thinks in the lead section. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Will read the article more closely again and will get back. :) --Aminz 09:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, thanks for telling us that. I think that may be the source of the problem. You appear to feel that Lewis's work is particularly important in the field of NAS, but it isn't. It's certainly worth mentioning, and even worth a section, but definitely not so important that it needs to be specifically highlighted in the lead or emphasized outside his section. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Lewis's area of expertise is not anti-semitism of course, but the template on "Anti-Semitism" mentions Lewis as one of the writers on Anti-Semtism and in any case, I am a fan of his. Anyways, the article should be written in a way (if necessary using weasel words) to avoid POV problems. --Aminz 09:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Weasel words are best avoided, and there's no POV problem with saying "proponents of the concept argue ..." SlimVirgin (talk) 09:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If a very recent reliable source says that "all proponents argue that way", then I'll have no objection to it. Please give me time to review Lewis's article again. Cheers, --Aminz 09:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't imagine any source saying that every single proponent makes every single one of these points, but then if we had to source things that way, 99 per cent of the encyclopedia would have to be deleted. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: As I said above, Lewis is very notable when it comes to the history of Islam. What makes him particularly notable when it comes to New anti-Semitism? Jayjg (talk) 15:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly not notable enough for his ideas to be singled out in the lead section. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bernard Lewis 

message: Aminz, the material you added to the intro has nothing to do with NAS. First, we can't single out Lewis's opinion for the lead, because why choose that source and not some other? More importantly, when he wrote: "to hate and persecute Jews is not necessarily motivated by anti-Semitism," he wasn't talking only about new anti-Semitism. He was making a general point and using a rhetorical flourish to make it (because in reality, as you know and as Lewis knows, anyone who "hates and persecutes Jews" is going to turn out to be an anti-Semite). The material is completely inappropriate for the lead section because it's far too idiosyncratic and not on-topic. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, you keep trying to insert in various places that Lewis said that "criticism of the state of Israel or Zionism" is not necessarily anti-Semitism. But all the sources would agree with that, so it's inappropriate to attribute it only to him. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: What makes you think it is not correct? Lewis holds the view that NAS is ideological anti-Semitism, based on opposition to the State of Israel and involving the demonization of Israel/Jews and the holding of them to standards not applied to others. Those are his two key criteria. The lead describes proponents' views in general; we can't get into the specifics of what each person thinks in the lead section. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Will read the article more closely again and will get back. :) --Aminz 09:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, thanks for telling us that. I think that may be the source of the problem. You appear to feel that Lewis's work is particularly important in the field of NAS, but it isn't. It's certainly worth mentioning, and even worth a section, but definitely not so important that it needs to be specifically highlighted in the lead or emphasized outside his section. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Lewis's area of expertise is not anti-semitism of course, but the template on "Anti-Semitism" mentions Lewis as one of the writers on Anti-Semtism and in any case, I am a fan of his. Anyways, the article should be written in a way (if necessary using weasel words) to avoid POV problems. --Aminz 09:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Weasel words are best avoided, and there's no POV problem with saying "proponents of the concept argue ..." SlimVirgin (talk) 09:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If a very recent reliable source says that "all proponents argue that way", then I'll have no objection to it. Please give me time to review Lewis's article again. Cheers, --Aminz 09:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't imagine any source saying that every single proponent makes every single one of these points, but then if we had to source things that way, 99 per cent of the encyclopedia would have to be deleted. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: As I said above, Lewis is very notable when it comes to the history of Islam. What makes him particularly notable when it comes to New anti-Semitism? Jayjg (talk) 15:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly not notable enough for his ideas to be singled out in the lead section. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lewis for the third time

message: I think I'm starting to see why we're having so much trouble here figuring out the history. There seem to be two main threads in "new anti-Semitism".  The first is the left/liberal opposition from the New Left/Radical Left of the 1960s and starting at the Six-day war of 1967.  That's what Forster and Epstein talk about, writing in 1974.  That thread lives on, today tied to the anti-globalization movement. But it's mostly talk, not violence.  Endelman, writing in 2005, describes it as "worrisome, but not yet threatening" (Endelman, "Antisemitism in Western Europe Today", p. 77)
The other thread stems from the movement of sizable Islamic populations into Western Europe. That's the part that dates from the 1990s.  That's where the violence is coming from.  "Muslim youth, drunk on the heady rhetoric of radical Islam, do threaten Jews". (Endelman, p. 77) 
Most of the disagreement stems from different interpretations of how these two threads, both real and both called "new anti-Semitism", relate to each other. Sources disagree on this, and US and Western European views seem also to differ.  --John Nagle 18:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both strands together are being identified as NAS. What's your source for "That's the part that dates from the 1990s"? SlimVirgin (talk) 06:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Then find a source who backs you up. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's turn that around: do you think a majority of writers on "NAS" are in agreement with the definition in this article?  CJCurrie 20:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All the books and articles by proponents that I have read describe those aspects; some concentrate more on one or another aspect. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mightn't we clarify that in the intro?  CJCurrie 20:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you suggest? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with both these comments. It is bound to be difficult to write with consensus about such a strongly contested concept/notion. There has been similar controversy, for example, in how the article totalitarianism should be approached. But at least in that case the description of that concept is kept separate from the recounting of the history of the period to which it mainly relates. Telling the history of anti-semitism from the 1990s to the present would be a much easier task and one that is arguably more useful to the encyclopedia. If it were completed first then perhaps it would be possible to return to this article with new understandings. Itsmejudith 19:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's tough.  The context back to the six-day war gives some sense of how the liberal left and radical Islam, rather unexpected allies, ended up on the same side in parts of Europe.  But we could probably drop the material from the 1940s, Stalin, and the "Doctor's Plot", which really belongs to the history of Stalinism, and start at the six-day war in 1967.  --John Nagle 22:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the editors who have done very little or no reading around the subject who are agreeing with the hypothesis (which is very unclear). There's not much point in that. We publish what the most authoritative sources on the subject have written. That is all we do. Therefore, those sources have to be read. There's no point in uninformed speculation about what they might say if you were to read them. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: John, it was Chris O who added the large pre-1967 chunk, which was initially longer than this. I've never been very happy about its inclusion, as none of us has read the entire history of the development of anti-Semitism, so it's impossible to know whether the section is too selective. This is probably a good article to read about the background; it's Wistrich explaining what he sees as a new form of anti-Semitism (or new wave) to the President of Israel in 1984, where he talks about anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, and the Soviet influence. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am not watching this talk very closely. What the Soviets (and many after them: notably the Left and the Arab world) called "anti-Zionism" - that includes the "Doctor's Plot", was very much antisemitism. Let me know if you need evidence. Stalinism is concerned with the political system, NKVD/KGB and the cult of personality. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two historical threads 

message: Courtesy notice because this page is so active. I think the move is due, per Talk:Antisemitism#Survey. Objections? ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I would have opposed the anti-Semitism rename, but since it's happened we may as well be consistent. --Coroebus 16:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I have no objection. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: None here. Jayjg (talk) 20:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Now to fixing double redirs]. ←Humus sapiens ну? 19:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Renaming into [[New antisemitism]]

message: Ashibaka, I reverted your change of the first header, because the current header asks what the concept is, and the next few sections explain what it is; to use the word "emergence" instead would be incongruous with most of the sections, except for history, and it begs the question: emergence of what? We are saying it's a concept; by using the word "emergence," you're implying it's a real phenomenon. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the term "emergence", meaning the emergence of "New Antisemitism" as a phrase, isn't quite adequate to describe the subheadings. However, "What is the concept of the new anti-Semitism?" is a totally unacceptable heading because it is stated in the form of a question rather than a noun phrase. Besides, the entire article is supposed to answer that question. So, someone needs to come up with a good noun phrase for the subheadings, or remove the top-level heading entirely. (Also, someone needs to go substitute "antisemitism" for "anti-Semitism" throughout the article except for quotes... eew.) Ashibaka tock 21:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Ashibaka, I personally don't see anything wrong with having a question as a header. The whole article doesn't answer that particular question, just the first section; the rest gives examples of where it's coming from and who has responded to it. So it seems appropriate in that sense. We could try "Arguments for and against the concept." SlimVirgin (talk) 21:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although the history section wouldn't fit into that very well. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Your edit looks good, Ashibaka. Thanks. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: About the header

message: Finkelstein calls Walter Laqueur "an Israel stalwart" and attempts to describe Laqueur's position. I don't think NF does him justice: the stalwart left Israel in 1953. Here is something from Laqueur's 2006 book "Dying for Jerusalem: The Past, Present and Future of the Holiest City": "I never was a Zionist if this implied the ingathering of all the exiles, but I could not possibly be an anti-Zionist for it would have meant turning against those who had saved my life. The anti-Zionists would have make me believe, in effect, that I should have committed suicide together with thousands belonging to my generation rather than immigrate to a country that was not altogether empty." (p.15) I have provided a relevant (IMHO) Laqueur's quote in the article. Feel free to shuffle it around. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finkelstein & Laqueur 

message: The Power of Israel in the United States is a book that appears to be classic New antisemitism (or maybe old antisemitism).  Is there a place to collect these types of references or would inclusion decisions to polemic?  Tbeatty 02:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have read it and you have quotations from it that illustrate definitions of New antisemitism as given in this article, then it is relevant. If you are just judging from the title, then no. If you have a review that accuses the book of being new antisemitism then that is probably also relevant. Itsmejudith 14:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Books/Articles that espouse New antisemitism

message: Isn't Holocaust denial a form of new antisemitism? The article almost makes no mention of that. Sofeil 08:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure it fits the definition, at least as I understand it.--Mantanmoreland 18:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Holocaust denial

message: This discussion page seems to be getting too long? Can someone go ahead and archive some of the old discussions? I'm new here so I don't want to do anything to provoke people. Sofeil 08:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Sofeil. I'll archive it shortly. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving?

message: Hi SlimVirgin,
The following piece is also not about NAS, or it is? 
:Until the 19th century, Muslims had regarded Jews with what Lewis calls "amused, tolerant superiority" — they were seen as physically weak, cowardly, and unmilitary — and although Jews living in Muslim countries were not treated as equals, they were shown a certain amount of respect. 
Cheers, --Aminz 06:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It gives the background to the new thing that Lewis wants to call NAS. Your edit was about Christianity. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Where do you see the words "New antisemitism" in the quotes above? Beit Or 10:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Please don't be offensive; I read talk pages. You've tried to insert a comparison between Muslim and Christian antisemitism in the article on New antisemitism. The logical question is where did you see the New antisemitism discussed in the quotes you wanted to insert. Beit Or 09:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Calling you for civility is not equivalent to not assuming good faith. The quote above provides good context on how Muslim antisemitism mutated in the course of time before reaching the stage of the New antisemitism. Your edit inserted a sentence on how Christians were busy persecuting each other and some more stuff irelevant to the New antisemitism in the Muslim world. Beit Or 09:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: This is Lewis's view, but it's not the ultimate truth, and there was more to your reverted edit than that. Beit Or 09:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I cannot parse your comment. Who is part of what? Beit Or 09:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Aminz, we already have enough Lewis, and arguably too much. The only reason that section is as long as it is, is that I find Lewis's writing confusing, and so I was reluctant to summarize too much. We definitely don't need any more, especially when it's background only, and not even clearly that. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: That's not a reliable source, and anyway, this page isn't about Anti-Semitism in Islam. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: This isn't about Lewis, Bat Ye'or, Islam, anti-Semitism in Islam, Christianity, or any of those other issues. We already have too much from Bernard Lewis, and the article is long. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The article already covers his opinions on how the New antisemitism formed in sufficient detail. Beit Or 14:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Looks good to me. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lewis Again :) 

message: There are a lot of examples of new anti-Semitism on college campuses around the Western world, from both professors and grassroots programs such as the Muslim Student Union at UC Irvine but I don't see significant mention of this aspect of the phenomenon.   --GHcool 17:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  College campuses 

message: If there are no objections within the next 24 hours, I will move this page to new anti-Semitism. Floaterfluss 20:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is at least one objection. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move 

message: Why is this section removed?? It is about the recent emergance of antisemitism among Muslims and argues why it happened. --Aminz 21:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is about the New antisemitism, please stick to the subject. Beit Or 21:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: However due to the conflict between Arabs and Jews in Palestine, these ideas started to appear in political polemics both in the nationalist press and in books. The antisemitism greatly increased from 1948 till it had its peak by the 1970s and then declined from 1980s and 1990s "as the slow process of rapprochement between the Arab world and the state of Israel evolved. 
--Aminz 22:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I cannot see any. Beit Or 05:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Stillman never uses the phrase "new antisemitism". By your own standards of referencing that you advocate on Talk:Antisemitism, it's original research to say that his work is about the New antisemitism. Furthermore, that section contained a biased and badly written title and an equally slanted and irrelevant content that implied there was no antisemitism among Muslims before the 19th century. Beit Or 14:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: A superb example of palpable original research. Interestingly, however, the bulk of the section that you inserted , including its title, cannot possibly be about the New antisemitism because it's mostly about the 19th and the first half of the 20th century. This is not to mention the abvious tag that the title you have chosen is extremely biased. Beit Or 21:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, one sentence out of a whole chapter with the phrase "new antisemitism" never mentioned. Beit Or 22:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Both of these claims are nonsensical and flatly contradict the writings of Stillman, not to mention those of other scholars. Beit Or 23:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aminz, please stop this obsession with Bernard Lewis. (1) It may be his opinion that anti-Semitism in Islam began with the establishment of a Jewish state, but not everyone agrees. (2) That should be discussed in Islam and anti-Semitism, Anti-Semitism, or History of Anti-Semitism. (3) The only thing we care about here in relation to Islam is the extent to which writers have identified Islamic anti-Semitism as part of the concept of New antisemitism. What happened pre-Israel is not relevant here. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Increased European commercial, missionary and imperialist activities within the Muslim world during the 19th and 20th centuries introduced anti-Semitic ideas and literature into the region. At first these prejudices only found a reception among Arabic-speaking Christian protégés of the Europeans in Syria, Lebanon and Egypt and were too new and too palpably foreign for any widespread acceptance among Muslims. However, with the ever-increasing conflict between Arabs and Jews in Palestine during the period of the British Mandate, the language and imagery of European anti-Semitism began to appear in political polemics both in the nationalist press and in books (Stillman, New attitudes toward the Jew in the Arab world, in Jewish Social Studies, xxxvii [1975], 197-204; idem, Antisemitism in the contemporary Arab world, in Antisemitism in the contemporary world, ed. M. Curtis, Boulder and London 1986, 70-85). For more than two decades following 1948, this trend increased greatly, but peaked by the 1970s, and declined somewhat as the slow process of rapprochement between the Arab world and the state of Israel evolved in the 1980s and 1990s; it remains to be seen how the tensions arising in 2000 will affect the trend. 
It is clearly talking about the recent antisemitism among Muslims and how it appeared. I am restoring the tag meanwhile we are discussing this. --Aminz 03:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: What does this have to do with NEW antisemitism, which is about the RELATIONSHIP between the alleged antisemitism of the left, the far right, and Islam? We have already touched on these issues with Lewis, which is enough because it's not strictly on-topic, so to add more would be ridiculous. Please add it to Islam and antisemitism. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Stillman is talking about an antisemitism that he alleges began in 1948, peaked in the 1970s, and lessened in the 80s and 90s. The New antisemitism is about antisemitism that started with the left in the late 80s, and gained significant ground through alliances with the far right, and Muslims in the 21st century. They're obviously different subjects, and they have nothing to do with the image at the top of the page. Jayjg (talk) 00:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Please avoid WP:POINT. Jayjg (talk) 16:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: What on earth are you talking about? Jayjg (talk) 03:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Very simple. You claimed: "The New antisemitism is about antisemitism that started with the left in the late 80s, and gained significant ground through alliances with the far right, and Muslims in the 21st century." Either please source it or take it back. --Aminz 06:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Read the article please. Are you serious? Take it back? Jayjg (talk) 06:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you can source it, then why don't you add it to the intro so that everybody gets an idea of what new-antisemitism is about. I personally doubt it. Please instead of asking me to read the article, find the source which states that and add it to the article. It is the responsibility of the one who claims something to name a source, together with its page number. --Aminz 23:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aminz, the entire article is about that. Please read the article and the sources provided. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  SlimVirgin, please do me a favor. Add that to the intro and source it. I really doubt that everything mainly started in late 80s and among Muslims it mainly started in 21st century. Please do this favor to me. It shouldn't take much time of you if you have the sources ready. --Aminz 23:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead is fine as it is, Aminz. We discuss in the first section when various scholars believe it started, and then each section about those scholars' ideas says a bit more about what they think the concept consists of. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article says: "French philosopher Pierre-André Taguieff writes that the first wave of the new antisemitism emerged in the Arab-Muslim world and the Soviet sphere following the 1967" There is no reason then to believe that Stillman is not talking about New-Antisemtisim. Stillman wrote his article in the beginning of 21st century and is talking about the antisemitism which emerged among Arabs having its roots in politics. He is refering to New-Antisemitism, not to the old one. --Aminz 23:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the Muslim element; if you'll read just a little further, you'll note the leftist element, which starts becoming more prominent in the 80s. Then, as you go, you'll see discussion of the alliances that start forming post 9/11. Stillman is obviously talking about something else. Feel free to read the entire New antisemitism article when you have a chance. Jayjg (talk) 04:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Are you equating Muslim antisemitism with New antisemitism? They are not identical. Jayjg (talk) 04:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It's just a little bit farther down in the article. Really, feel free to read the entire article, it will be most helpful. Jayjg (talk) 04:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for making that clear. All I need is showing that the term new anti-semitism is used for the current "Popular Muslim writing and journalism now regularly introduce themes such as ritual murder, Jewish manipulation of finance, and worldwide Jewish conspiracy, themes taken over with little difficulty from an entirely different ambience" by some scholars. Would that suffice? --Aminz 04:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Let me get this straight; you're trying to create a definition for New antisemitism, and so you're now looking for sources to support your definition? Jayjg (talk) 06:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: None of the sources you quote say exactly what Lewis says; Lewis seems to have his own idiosyncratic view, and of course, being a scholar of Islam, not antisemitism, he focuses on Islam. That said, an entire lengthy section is devoted to the view of Lewis who, again, is a scholar of Islam, not antisemitism. It seems that undue weight is already given to this essentially non-expert viewpoint; why would we want to add even more of the same? Jayjg (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Norman Stillman 

message: The Encyclopedia of religion, in the anti-semitism article states the following about Islam (will post this on the antisemitism article as well) :
 "The premodern world of Islam was quite different from premodern Christendom. The most obvious difference is the variety of populations encompassed within the world of premodern Islam, which was a rich melange of racial, ethic, and religious communities. Within this complex human tapestry, the Jews were by no means obvious as lone dissenters, as they had been earlier in the world of polytheism or subsequently in most of medieval Christendom. While occasionally invoking the ire of the prophet Muhammad(c.570-632) and his later followers, the Jews played no special role in the essential Muslim myth as the Jews did in the Christian myth. The dhimmi people, defined as those with a revealed religous faith, were accorded basic rights to security and religous identity in Islamic society and included Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians. Lack of uniqueness ameliorated considerably the circumstances of Jews in the medieval world of Islam.
 In the post-World War II period, however, the Jewish Zionist enterprise did take on elements of uniqueness: it was projected as the sole Western effort at recolonization within Islamic sphere. This perception has triggered intese antipathy for Zionism and its Jewish supporters, often viewed as indistinguishable, and has resulted in the revival of harshly negative imagery spawned in the altogether different sphere of medieval Christendom. Popular Muslim writing and journalism now regularly introduce themes such as ritual murder, Jewish manipulation of finance, and worldwide Jewish conspiracy, themes taken over with little difficulty from an entirely different ambience. Once again, these themes have proven flexible, readily transferable from milieu to milieu.  
--Aminz 23:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you equating Muslim antisemitism with New antisemitism? They are not identical. Jayjg (talk) 04:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It's just a little bit farther down in the article. Really, feel free to read the entire article, it will be most helpful. Jayjg (talk) 04:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for making that clear. All I need is showing that the term new anti-semitism is used for the current "Popular Muslim writing and journalism now regularly introduce themes such as ritual murder, Jewish manipulation of finance, and worldwide Jewish conspiracy, themes taken over with little difficulty from an entirely different ambience" by some scholars. Would that suffice? --Aminz 04:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Let me get this straight; you're trying to create a definition for New antisemitism, and so you're now looking for sources to support your definition? Jayjg (talk) 06:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: None of the sources you quote say exactly what Lewis says; Lewis seems to have his own idiosyncratic view, and of course, being a scholar of Islam, not antisemitism, he focuses on Islam. That said, an entire lengthy section is devoted to the view of Lewis who, again, is a scholar of Islam, not antisemitism. It seems that undue weight is already given to this essentially non-expert viewpoint; why would we want to add even more of the same? Jayjg (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Muslim anti-semitism; another source 

message: Why was this section removed from the article?  Anyone know offhand?  And if it's meant to remain removed from the article, the link to it from Kosher should be removed...  Tomertalk 07:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tomer, it was removed because not entirely relevant, and because it was being added to various articles by sockpuppets in order to be disruptive. That aside, none of the academic sources on NAS mentions the bans as an example of it, and they affected Muslims and Jews equally. Plus, the page is already very long, so it was agreed we should leave out borderline material. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Understandable...so what about removing the links to the no-longer-extant section elsewhence?  Tomertalk 02:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. I'm not sure where they are, so feel free. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bans_on_Kosher_meat 

message: "…attacks on Jewish symbols…" seems awfully narrow, especially in the first sentence of the article. Do citations from the NAS theorists really bear out "attacks on symbols" as being so central to their thesis? - Jmabel | Talk 22:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They mean attacks on synagogues, cemeteries, and such like. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attacks on symbols? 

message: I've moved the page from new antisemitism to new anti-Semitism. Floaterfluss 18:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Be aware that there are many who will disagree. AnonMoos 18:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not do this again. This is discussed extensively and a unilateral move is completely inappropriate. --Leifern 18:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now Kendrick has moved it too. Please leave it where it is. There was a poll to decide which spelling to adopt wiki-wide, and this is the spelling that's favored by academics and others who specialize in the study of antisemitism. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; the page should not be moved.  "New anti-Semitism" is a widely-used and widely-discussed term, and should remain the article title.  (The same logic should apply to "Israeli Apartheid", but I'll leave that discussion for another day.)  CJCurrie 02:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was agreed that antisemitism would be used wiki-wide. If you would read the academic sources, CJ, you'd see that most use "new antisemitism." And the same logic does apply to "Israeli apartheid." SlimVirgin (talk) 02:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got no opinion on this issue either but to stop casual name movers a brief history could be created at the old name. (→Netscott) 03:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A good idea at first glance, and one you might want to suggest at the Village Pump. Hornplease 21:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved page 

message: Tags are used to indicate the dispute over the article as accurately as possible. All the Tags are made by wikipedians themselves. I haven't seen any policy which forbids usage of the added tag. This tag is pretty good since it is a real solution to prevention of edit warrings--Aminz 17:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Content conflict specifics shouldn't be spilling over into the actual article itself imho... it is more logical to use a standard conflict tag and keep the conflict specifics on the talk pages is it not? (→Netscott) 17:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not every content conflict warrants a tag, and sometimes tags are just a means for extreme minority views to deface articles. Jayjg (talk) 21:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: If the two versions are very different, then this tag is more proper and more accurate. --Aminz 21:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Aminz, what is the point of adding a sentence to the lead and then also adding a fact tag? Please don't add it until you have a source, and preferably several sources if you want it in the lead. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Just to clarify: my edit summary is misleading, because the diff made it look as though you were adding the sentence as a note inside the Strauss ref, and I wondered why you were both attributing it to Strauss and asking for a source. However, I see now that it's outside the ref, and therefore entirely unsourced, and it needs more than one source if it's to be stated as fact in the lead. Apologies for the confusion. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I also had a hard time whenever I wanted to add it. I think it was important since I didn't really know that new-antisemitism among Arabs started 6 years ago. --Aminz 06:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither did I. What source says that? Beit Or 07:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Jayjg informed me of this and I am waiting for his sources. . Do you now claim that he doesn't know what new-antisemitism is? --Aminz 07:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, Aminz, you have always insisted on academic peer-reviewed sources; since when have you started accepting Wikipedians as reliable sources? Actually, Jayjg only said that the new antisemitism "gained gained significant ground through alliances with the far right, and Muslims in the 21st century." This is a far cry from your "new-antisemitism among Arabs started 6 years ago." You've added one more achivement to your already impressive record of source misrepresentation. Anyway, I'm not going to spend my time splitting hairs over what Jay said or did not say. Regards, Beit Or 07:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I added Jayjg's comment almost word by word and the fact tag was for added so that Jayjg might have time to source it since it is a pretty interesting comment. I was not editing the article, just commenting on the sentence. Okay before 6 years ago, antisemitism wasn't significant. That's pretty informative. Regards, --Aminz 07:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These kinds of actions, including deliberately misconstruing what I've said, are WP:POINT. Jayjg (talk) 16:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tag 

message: What's the dispute?  Tomertalk 10:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aminz, what is the point of adding a sentence to the lead and then also adding a fact tag? Please don't add it until you have a source, and preferably several sources if you want it in the lead. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Just to clarify: my edit summary is misleading, because the diff made it look as though you were adding the sentence as a note inside the Strauss ref, and I wondered why you were both attributing it to Strauss and asking for a source. However, I see now that it's outside the ref, and therefore entirely unsourced, and it needs more than one source if it's to be stated as fact in the lead. Apologies for the confusion. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I also had a hard time whenever I wanted to add it. I think it was important since I didn't really know that new-antisemitism among Arabs started 6 years ago. --Aminz 06:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither did I. What source says that? Beit Or 07:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Jayjg informed me of this and I am waiting for his sources. . Do you now claim that he doesn't know what new-antisemitism is? --Aminz 07:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, Aminz, you have always insisted on academic peer-reviewed sources; since when have you started accepting Wikipedians as reliable sources? Actually, Jayjg only said that the new antisemitism "gained gained significant ground through alliances with the far right, and Muslims in the 21st century." This is a far cry from your "new-antisemitism among Arabs started 6 years ago." You've added one more achivement to your already impressive record of source misrepresentation. Anyway, I'm not going to spend my time splitting hairs over what Jay said or did not say. Regards, Beit Or 07:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I added Jayjg's comment almost word by word and the fact tag was for added so that Jayjg might have time to source it since it is a pretty interesting comment. I was not editing the article, just commenting on the sentence. Okay before 6 years ago, antisemitism wasn't significant. That's pretty informative. Regards, --Aminz 07:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These kinds of actions, including deliberately misconstruing what I've said, are WP:POINT. Jayjg (talk) 16:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Enough about what the tag should look like

message: Is this the article where details on 'Holocaust Fatigue' belong?  
I'm reluctant to add in details on it because even though examples of it are seemingly described online im unaware if there been any official announcement that 'Holocaust Fatigue' is 
:a) a tangible 'thing', 
:b) 'new antisemitism', 
:c) 'old antisemitism', 
:d) a mixture of 'old & new antisemitism', etc. or 
:e) an entirely new phenomena as yet undefined by the scholars arrayed in the article? Almost like a 'new, new antisemitism' for want of a better phrase.
The article as it stands only briefly speaks to this area (Bauer section). 
Also is it possible to point out in a subsection some examples of the 'new antisemitism'? Some speeches given, words used, articles written, people found to be 'newly antisemitic' would be helpful in understanding what the thing all the academics are talking about actually is. D Mac Con Uladh 14:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Holocaust Fatigue

message: Virginia Q. Tilley in "The One-State Solution: A Breakthrough for Peace in the Israeli-Palestinian Deadlock", University of Michigan Press states:
"Zionist discourse has long defined any criticism of Israel as "cover" or "code words" for anti-Semitism, and in the past decade, a wave of publications has emphasized afresh that talk of a multiethnic state reflects this "new anti-semitism" or "anti-Semitism without Jews." Under this banner, Zionist networks are commonly mobilized to target even Jewish advocates of the one-state solution as witting or unwitting architects of genecide. Professor Tony Judt, a senior scholar at New York University, met such an onslaught after publishing his landmark "Israel: An Alternative"   
--Aminz 06:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quote-mining books.google.com for statements in agreement with your POV isn't the best way to write an article. Tilley's conspiratorial view of the world as being secretly undermined by "Zionist networks" is, um, "interesting", and she is indeed an associate professor of political science at a small private college, Hobart and William Smith Colleges, though it could be noted that the student body is no larger than that of a large high school, and the college itself does not even offer doctoral degrees. In any event, I'm not sure what this could possibly add to the introduction, which already says "Critics of the concept argue that it serves to equate legitimate criticism of Israel with antisemitism, and that it is used to silence debate." That's essentially the claim that Tilley makes, though stated in a less inflammatory way. Jayjg (talk) 03:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some other relevant sources 

message: This seems to be a good source  --Aminz 06:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what's now called "modern antisemitism," or "racial antisemitism," not the same thing at all, as Bernard Lewis points out. Aminz, please stop changing the lead. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison between new-antisemitism and old one 

message: I found the same arguments I was looking for not from the previous sources but from "Klug, Brian. The Myth of the New Anti-Semitism." Would you please explain why it was removed? I specified exactly what the critics object to. Of course they don't object to the existence of absurd conspiracy theories etc etc. --Aminz 07:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The material you added to the lead was almost incomprehensible, and the 1860s claim was, at best, an inaccurate reading of the source.  The "New anti-semitism" that The Cambridge History of Twentieth Century Political Thought is referring to is, of course modern racial antisemitism. It is the term "antisemitism" itself that was coined in the 1860s, not the concept of "New antisemitism", which is a late 20th century/early 21st century phenomenon. Jayjg (talk) 03:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: I would use a broader term, such as "economic antisemitism." 
: I don't believe any socialist tyrant (such as Stalin) earnestly believed in the true ideals of communism--they just wanted a dictatorship. What better way to maintain control over the people than to repress them economically? Bigotry is more about power than hatred.
I do see your point where the anti-capitalist antisemite would spit hatred about the "greedy Jew." However I don't think this is a significant population and most of these people can be filed under "classical antisemite."
Another huge aspect of "economic antisemitism" (and other forms of bigotry) is a simple one--jealousy. Nothing makes a loser feel better about himself than lashing out at the more successful. 
I think "economic antisemitism" should be the main article, with anti-captialist antisemitism as a chapter in that article. You know a lot more on the subject than me though!
Written in good faith
204.149.81.4 21:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's spam and I personally think that the contributions should remain on the talk page. Having said that, there is much that I disagree with. Please bear in mind that talk pages must not be used for carrying on arguments, only for practical discussion around changes to articles. If you want to start a new article you should first consider what reliable sources you would have to base the article on. By "reliable sources" Wikipedia means books by academics or other respected commentators, articles in refereed academic journals and reports in serious newspapers or broadcast media. Some other kinds of sources are suitable depending on the type of article - for example an article about Charles Dickens can refer to his novels - but for writing an unbiased article on controversial political matters your choice is very restricted. I would be very surprised if there proved to be sufficient basis for an article on anti-capitalism and antisemitism. Bear in mind also that you would immediately be embroiled in an argument about whether the anti-capitalist movement is separate from the anti-globalization movement or whether these are just two words for the same phenomenon.Itsmejudith 00:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RE: proposed new post 

message: Premature FAC nom archived at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New antisemitism/archive1. Sandy (Talk) 20:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archived FAC nom

message: How is what Jayjg removed original research? It is accurately cited to the Jewish Virtual Library. No, it didn't come from articles that used the phrase "New Anti-Semitism"—it was simply data about numbers of UN votes on Israel—but as far as I know there is no requirement that the source used for data be writing explicitly on the topic of the article. That leave us saying that an article on a person could only cite biographies of that person, or that an article on an artistic movement could not cull a date from an article about an individual who was part of the movement. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't look like original research to me. There is, however, a question of relevance. I for one cannot figure out how the United States vetoing resolutions against Israel is in any way directly related to the subject of this article. ==Taxico 09:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How is this original research? 

message: Here's a quick overview of events relating to this controversy:
1.  On 11 October 2006, I indicated that I would change the wording in which this article that addresses Norman Finkelstein's "Beyond Chutzpah" (here, with minor adjustments here, here and here).  I had several concerns with the way Finkelstein's book was presented, and believed the overall effect was misleading to readers.  (See below for details.)
2.  SlimVirgin's response followed nine minutes later.
3.  I responded here.  The conversation then degenerated into a dispute as to whether or not I had ever "written for the enemy" on Wikipedia ().
4.  My adjustments to the article page appeared here, with a few very minor adjustments here.  
5.  SlimVirgin never responded to my arguments, and did not initially take issue with anything I had written on the article page.  Instead, she re-inserted the material I had removed from the caption on 31 October 2006, in a slightly different form, in block-quotes, and without comment.  I probably should have taken issue with this at the time, though perhaps I didn't notice; I can't recall offhand.
Here's an overview of the controversy itself:
I initially objected to an earlier introduction of the Finkelstein section, which read as follows: "Norman Finkelstein, a political scientist at DePaul University, argues that proponents of the concept of new anti-Semitism are compelled to deny the causal relationship between contemporary anti-Semitism and criticism of Israel, because to acknowledge the relationship would be admit that Israel and its Jewish supporters might themselves be causing anti-Semitism."
My objection now is to the block-quote section, which reads as follows:  "[I]f Israeli policies, and widespread Jewish support for them, evoke hostility toward Jews, it means that Israel and its Jewish supporters might themselves be causing anti-Semitism; and it might be doing so because Israel and its Jewish supporters are in the wrong."
I still believe this quote is misleading, and still believe that it should be removed.  I've already explained why in my 11 October post.  For those who can't be bothered to read it, here's a quick summary:
:(i)  My most fundamental objection is that Finkelstein did not actually make the specific assertion attributed to him in the quote provided.
:(ii)  Even if he had, this is not his primary argument concerning "NAS".
:(iii)  Even if it were, the quote provided ignores a great deal of textual nuance and is misleading if presented in isolation.
More detail:
:(i)  The quoted text does not accurately reflect Finkelstein's argument, which can be summarized from his own words in the following manner (pp. 77-78):
::a) There is a broad consensus among those treating the topic that the emergence of the new anti-Semitism coincided with the latest flare-up in the Israel-Palestine conflict, reaching a peak during Operation Defensive Shield and the siege of Jenin in the spring of 2002 [...].
::b) The causal relationship would seem to be that Israel's brutal repression of Palestinians evoked hostility toward the "Jewish state" and its vocal Jewish supporters abroad.
::c) Yet is precisely this causal relationship that Israel's apologists emphatically deny: if Israeli policies, and widespread Jewish support for them, evoke hostility toward Jews, it means that Israel and its Jewish supporters themselves might be causing anti-Semitism; and it might be doing do because Israel and its Jewish supporters are in the wrong. (emphasis in original)
:Finkelstein does not present this conclusion as *his own argument* on this occasion, but rather presents it as the *logical outcome* of the arguments favoured by proponents of the term "new antisemitism".  As Finkelstein is emphatically *not* a proponent of the term, it is difficult to see how this conclusion could apply to him.  (Finkelstein's position is that much of what is called "new anti-Semitism" is not antisemitism at all, and it may be worth noting that all of the quotes cited above are taken from a section entitled "Mislabeling Legitimate Criticism of Israeli Policy".)
:Readers may object that this is nit-picking, and that Finkelstein does accuse Israel of fomenting anti-Semitism elsewhere in the book (eg., p. 85).  There is some validity to such an objection, and, by way of a pre-emptive response, I should note that I would not object to including in this article a quote or summary that accurately conveys his position on the matter.  The current quote, however, does not accomplish this.
:(ii)  The block-quote is unduly focused on a peripheral aspect of NF's argument. Finkelstein makes several arguments against the concept of a "new anti-Semitism" in the first section of "Beyond Chutzpah".  The text that SlimVirgin has chosen to highlight is taken from a four-page passage toward the section's end.
:During our previous exchange, SlimVirgin indicated that she chose to highlight this point because she "read the book carefully", and concluded "this is his strongest argument.  My response was:  "In that case, why did NF only devote four pages to it? And what criteria are you using to describe it as his "strongest argument", apart from your own discretion?  For that matter, why should we be making judgements as to the relative strengths and weaknesses of his arguments?"  SlimVirgin did not respond.
:Most of "Beyond Chutzpah"'s first section addresses what Finkelstein believes is the cynical use of the term "new antisemitism" for short-term political gain.  If we are to represent his position fairly, we should focus on this aspect of his book.
:(iii)  In addition to all of the above, the block-quote ignores a good deal of textual nuance.  A neutral reader might wonder if the quotation was designed to portray Finkelstein in a questionable light.
For all of these reasons, I believe the current block-quote is inappropriate.  I plan to replace it with a different block-quote in a few moments.
If any readers object to my decision, I hope they will (i) read my arguments before reverting, and (ii) respond to my arguments rather than resorting to ad hominem attacks and contrived outrage.  CJCurrie 02:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary

message: OK I expect to recive many answer and attacks that I am antisemit but I want little discussion. First I must say that I do not have problem with Jews but with state of Israel. Looking history in last 60 years for me state of Israel is born on Ethnic cleansing and genocide of Palestinians. If you look number of Jews in Israel in 1907 (for example) and today .....Can somebody explain me what is great difference of Ethnic cleansing in Balkans between 1991-95 and similar thing in Israel 1947-1957 ? Because of that I support Palestinians and fight for freedom. Because of political reality in future must exist Israel and Palestina but until that day Palestinians are having full right to attack Israel.
Let say this story in other way. If your house has been given to another person because of nationality are you having right to attack and kill that person which is now living in your house ? Answer of that question is answer if Palestinians are having right to attack Israel.Rjecina 07:09, 6 January 2007 (CET)
:It's sad that you would think the answer was yes.Gzuckier 15:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Birth of Israel

message: Misuse of Anti-Semitism ... -- AnonMoos 15:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That article is a quote. Half the quote can be found in footnote #31 already, and the idea in the other half is written into the first paragraph of the secton on Finkelstein. What else is there to merge? Gimmetrow 07:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New article which should probably be merged into this one

message: Surely the photograph of Tariq Ali in this article can be considered non-NPOV. He's shaking his fist; he's shot from a low angle so as to look malevolent. I have no intention of defending his position on this issue, but surely the article would be more balanced if critics of the concept weren't portrayed as scary and evil.
-Maggie --70.48.204.210 02:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it makes him look scary or evil, but passionate and committed, but regardless, it's the best photo we have of him that has a free licence, which is why it was used. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Slim - your help is needed over at Gog and Magog. Check recent edits of the section on "Gog and Magog and Ashkenazim" and my recent post on the talk page for an explanation. I only ask here because I can't work your talk page. Thanks, hon. - Maggie --67.71.120.202 16:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tariq Ali looks scary and evil 

message: If there's a scholarly consensus for the Okhrana as the forgers as various websites assert then scholarly refs can be provided. I will start to look it up. In the meantime, does Flannery not count as a religious rather than an academic source, and therefore to be treated with caution per WP guidelines? Suggest that all mention of the Protocols' authorship be left out until this point has been researched and debated. Thanks. Itsmejudith 00:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which WP policy says we should treat religious sources with caution? And Flannery's work on antisemitism is widely regarded as a classic. Judith, why do you often question sources you disagree with, but never question sources you agree with? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:RS. NB, I said guidelines, not policy. And a quick search shows up Eisner 2005. Foreword by Umberto Eco, good publisher (W.W. Norton), don't know if author is an academic, book was reviewed by serious press, argues that it was a Russian secret police forgery. Now does that count as more recent scholarship shedding doubt on Flannery? I don't know: I haven't read the book or even the reviews. As it happens, I try to be consistent and prefer good sources to bad even if they don't coincide with my prejudices. Whether I get it right, only others can tell.Itsmejudith 01:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aaaaargh! It's a comic novel. Probably all the better for that though. Itsmejudith 01:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: RS is a widely ignored guideline — the only pages about sources that matter are WP:NOR and WP:V — but even RS doesn't say what you're claiming. It says: "The websites, print media, and other publications of political parties and religious groups should be treated with caution, although neither political affiliation nor religious belief is in itself a reason not to use a source." Edward Flannery's work was not the publication of a religious group. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if you don't want to use RS then maybe we should discuss here the principles for what constitutes a suitable source on this and related articles. I am most interested in history and there are extra guidelines for historical articles but you may not think that this article is really about history. Flannery maybe does not qualify as a historian, which I think is an important principle for history articles, but I am not going to push that here. The text you have quoted has a particular POV, which is OK if his POV is balanced. In this case it seems that on a point of fact his work is superseded by more recent scholarship. Itsmejudith 10:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never heard that the Protocols were anything but a Tsarist forgery.  They were largely plagiarized from some non-anti-semitic French satires, which were, so far as I can tell, authored by political liberals. As far as I can tell, the socialist part comes up because the man many people thing was the author of the Protocols, Matvei Golovinski, was an agent provocateur for the Okhrana, and later supported the Bolsheviks.  But he was, at the time, a radical right winger, and the idea that he specifically wrote it doesn't seem clear. The claim that the Protocols "came from socialist sources" is incredibly vague, and ought to be removed unless it can be clearly explained what this means. john k 17:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's no longer in the article so it's a moot point. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point can be sourced to the US State Department if necessary (the report currently cited that mentions the EU research into antisemitic incidents).Itsmejudith 21:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protocols of the Elders of Zion