This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
1) Encyclopedia articles may describe ideas or reality. They may do both in the same article but not at the same time. Some things are only ideas, such as, for example, a unicorn. There are no real unicorns, but that's not a problem. There's no need to create Unicorn (term) to distinguish it from real unicorns. The problem with this article on new anti-Semitism is that it often isn't clear whether the text refers to a concept, a term, or reality.
To take but one example: a concept can't be controversial as such. Only some claim made _about_ the concept can be controversial. Only the claim that there _is_ a new anti-Semitism, where "new anti-Semitism" is understood in a specific sense is controversial. There are also many claims involving the phrase "the new anti-Semitism" that are uncontroversial.
2)"The new anti-Semitism" isn't a single concept. It is a term or phrase. Different people who speak or write about "the new anti-Semitism" or "a new anti-Semitism" attach different meanings to the expression. There are several concepts of "new anti-Semitism". This is one factor which makes this Wikipedia article difficult to write. It isn't like writing an article about Paris or chimpanzees. Because of the NPOV principle we can't single out only one meaning of the term. I have given many examples here, and I will write more about the early history of the term below.
It is simply incorrect to say, as the current article does, that "[t]he adjective 'new' is used to distinguish this form of anti-Semitism as differing in its rhetoric, professed purpose, and place on the political spectrum from the old anti-Semitism, which is associated with the Right and motivated by racial theory, religion, or nationalism." _Most_ people use the term with this connotation, but many do not. And what exactly is a "proponent of the term new anti-Semitism"? Is that someone with a t-shirt saying "new anti-Semitism"?
3) Putting the word "new" in front of the word "anti-Semitism" is obviously not especially creative. As long as people have been talking about anti-Semitism, they have occasionally referred to some "new anti-Semitism". But the term acquired a more distinct meaning after World War II. "New anti-Semitism" generally meant post-Hitler anti-Semitism. It was an obvious fact the the defeat of Nazism was an enormous global setback for anti-Semitism. It didn't disappear completely, of course, but it became largely sub-surface. Until the early 1970s there are only occasional references to any "new anti-Semitism", usually with reference to Eastern Europe.
Perhaps the first mainstream reference to the new anti-Semitism as a major phenomenon was Lipset's 1971 article in New York Times. He made the typical observation that the new anti-Semitism was associated with the political left, whereas the old had been mainly a right-wing phenomenon. But he also _included_ the resurging right wing anti-Semitism as part of the phenomenon. The new anti-Semitism is often associated with criticism of Israel, but it differs from normal criticism of Israel, because it focuses on Jews as such and "implies that Jews are guilty of some primal evil". Lipset also discussed Arab anti-Semitism at some length.
The 1974 ADL report by Forster and Epstein was very different in it's approach. It was much more focused on criticism of Israel. The basic argument (also used by Abba Eban and others) was that any completely disproportionate criticism of Israel or Zionism was anti-Semitic in nature; if Jews were denied the rights granted to all other peoples, then that implied anti-Jewish intentions, sentiment or prejudice.
During the final decades of the 20th century there was still not much discussion of the "new anti-Semitism" outside academic and Jewish cirles. The discussion usually revolved around specific anti-Semitic acts (e.g. the 1982 attack on Rome's main synagogue). Some people, e.g. Per Ahlmark, 1989, have argued that the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon led to a radical rise of European anti-Semitism. "Before 1982, denying the Holocaust or trivializing it by cheap comparisons would have been unacceptable in the media. Now such comparisons are commonplace." (Ahlmark used the term "old-new anti-Semitism")
One important thread of the early "new anti-Semitism" discussion concerned the Nation of Islam in the US and related movements. In 1992 Henry Louis Gates Jr. wrote about the book The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews. [1] He called it "the bible of the new [black] anti-Semitism", "one of the most sophisticated instances of hate literature yet compiled" which "massively mis-represents the historical record".
-- Denis Diderot 20:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Can you suggest some changes, Denis? If you could either edit the article directly or post suggested changes to the talk page it would be helpful. Homey 01:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
SV wrote in her edit summary: "don't repeat inaccurate criticism from CJC" See direct quotation: "A direct quotation is a clear quotation said by a person and generally involves a whole sentence; it is absolutely verbatim in the order and is specific."
Clearly, parsing the sentence by including a period where one was not originally is a violation of this concept. The fact that you have now changed your rendering of the quotation to do away with the period you added suggests that, in fact, you know CJC's criticism was in fact valid. Homey 23:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Moshe, it's not my "addition to the quote", I added nothing to it, I simply substituted SV's truncation of a sentence with a direct quotation (ie one in which the sentence being quoted is complete). I do not see how anyone can possibly claim this to be improper. Homey 22:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
We quote people's opinions all the time Pecher. If we did not we wouldn't have half the articles we do (including this one which consists entirely of people's opinions. Our task is not to censor opinions we don't like but make sure that the opinions cited are properly attributed. That's all. Homey 22:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Let's take this to mediation. If you are confident that your position reflects Wikipedia policy than you have no reason to fear mediation. Homey 22:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I just deleted the reference to the notorious anti semite Michael Neumann being Jewish, there is NO cite for that. Incorrect 14:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh look, here's a European Union survey. Zionist plot. Obvious, innit.
Have you actually read the European Union survey? CJCurrie 02:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Why then are you suggesting that it blames recent manifestations of anti-Semitism on a Zionist plot, when it does nothing of the sort?
Feel free to provide a source to back up your original claim. CJCurrie 03:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Is anyone interested in finding an experienced editor who understands the content policies to be an informal mediator? I could probably find one who would be impartial if people think that would be helpful. The mediation committee is very tied up so formal mediation is probably not available. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Please work out your differences instead of edit warring. · Ka t efan0 (scribble)/ poll 03:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out WP:NPA. I wasn't aware of it and will reaffirm my resolve to edit WP rather than.... Back to the topic. Can anyone say why the following is not a useful beginning:
The meaning of the term New anti-Semitism is debated. Its meaning has changed since the first recorded use in 1902 in an Encyclopedia Britannica article. [1] At that time the term meant what some historians now call "modern anti-Semitism" (racial anti-Semitism, as opposed to pre-19th century anti-semitism which was mainly religious). The term was revived in 1971 in the New York Times Magazine [2] and in 1974 [3]. The revival of the term sparked debate because etc etc
placed by Mccready 12:54, 28 April 2006
I'd like to add a link to the "Organizations and forums whose stated aim is to fight anti-Semitism"
Ilka Schroder, a Christian German former member of the European parliament as part of the Green party has created an institute to fight new anti-semtiism. The main page is http://www.ilka.org/ and some pages are available in English at http://www.ilka.org/index_en.html.
Its been a few days an no one is objecting so I'll make it official jbolden1517 Talk 15:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Can I ask anyone why this is an issue. Everyone agreed to this link? jbolden1517 Talk 23:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Well I guess I'll change it back.
[This originally was a response to a snip by me, but I moved it so that it gets pulled out of the silly conversation it was originally part of since it deserves a serious discussion jbolden1517 Talk 21:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)]
Again, this takes us back to the fundamental problem of people simply not having read up about it. The definition is not so vague, although we're not being allowed to flesh it out in the intro. It is a form of Judenhass that emanates from the left. It is characterized by the demonization of the world's only Jewish state and of Jews as an ethnicity and a religion. Israel's right to exist as an equal member of the world community is denied. The Jewish people's right of self-determination is denied. Double standards are applied, whereby the actions of the Jewish state are judged according to a different standard from, say, the actions of all the neighboring states around her. Jews as a people are held collectively responsible for the actions of the Jewish state. Symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism are used: for example, blood libels are resurrected, the Jewish state and Jewish people are associated with wild conspiracy theories involving Jews or Zionists or Israelis plotting to take over the world, or being in control of other governments, or being responsible behind the scenes for various acts of terror mistakenly attributed to others. Arab and Islamic anti-Semitism are excused and ignored. Straw-man attacks are engaged in (as in the current intro), whereby Jews are alleged to claim that any criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism, and that is then used to condemn Jewish groups as unreasonable, and to deny that there is any such thing as the "new anti-Semitism." All of the above is accompanied by an international resurgence of violence against Jews and their synagogues and schools, particularly in Europe. It is found in conjunction with anti-Americanism (because Jews are believed either to control or be too influential with the American government), anti-Zionism, and the anti-globalization movement.
The above is the new anti-Semitism. We are not being allowed to say any of this in the intro, because people who have not read the literature are telling us there is no such phenomenon, even though they do know there is, because they almost certainly recognize the description. They may simply call it something else. If they do call it something else (or have no name for it), that is their original research. Authoritative sources are calling it "the new anti-Semitism." SlimVirgin (talk) 21:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Bad analogy. First of all I think it's questionable, if not offensive, to compare those who question NAS to Holocaust deniers (talk about guilt by association). Second, SV's premise is incorrect - all NAS *proponents* agree there is a NAS but not all who research anti-Semitism share that conclusion. Frankly, having had a father and grandfather who survived detention in the Transnestria cocentration camps and a grandmother who died in Auschwitz I find the comparision personally offensive. Please don't trivialise the Holocaust for the purpose of creating a tortured analogy. Homey 02:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
"Quit the amateur dramatics." No, an example of amateur dramatics is using specious analogies to the Holocaust or to Nazis, see Godwin's Law in an attempt to insulate your argument and discredit others. SV, plese try to restrict your arguments to the merits or demerits of various proposals rather than trying to discredit views you disagree with through gratuitous use of guilt by association. You seem addicted to the use of various logical fallacies whether they be this one, appeal to authority, or ones that CJCurrie has brought up. I think you know enough not to do this so please refrain from cheap debating union tricks from now on. Personally, I am offended when people invoke specious comparisons to the Holocaust to promote their particular argument whether it's "pro-lifers" describing abortion as a Holocaust or certain Israeli politicians comparing the Holocaust to the withdrawal of settlers or other policies or indeed if its anti-Zionists comparing the treatment of the Palestinians to the Holocaust. It's wrong and offensive in every instance, SV, including the case in which you did this and yes, I do find it personally offensive and revolting so please respect that and desist. Homey 13:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Nobody, not one person, is "denying" anti-Semitic incidents. What is contested is the classificatation of these incidents into a new genre of anti-Semitism. The comparison to the Holocaust and Holocaust denial is odious, manipulative, contemptable and offensive to many of us whose parents (in my case) suffered in the actual Holocaust. Thank you for the lecture on what I have a right to be offended by but you have no right to tell me not to be offended. Homey 12:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
"I do not remember it being us that brought up the "validity" of comparing the Israeli government to the Nazis"
I don't think such comparisons are valid whether they come from Israeli politicians and right-wing Zionists who opposed Rabin or Sharon or whether it comes from opponents of Israel (I think I've made that quite clear and I'm unaware of anyone here saying such comparisons are valid). Please save your straw dog arguments for your echo chamber where you're much more likely to get away with false claims about what people who disagree with you are saying. Homey 13:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
"Also as you should know, our personal histories are irrelevant so I do not understand why you would bring up the thing about your parents"
Because, as the child of a Holocuast survivor I'm personally offended by frivolous and specious references to the Holocaust. Is that clear enough? It's a shame you can't even acknowledge my right to be offended. Homey 02:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
And yet, SV raised it. Homey 03:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Modern anti-Semitism sounds better. Psychomel @ di(s)cussion 11:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
We could do that but it would be a completely different article "NAS" refers to a specific theory. Though perhaps having an article (or section in Anti-Semitism if there isn't one already) on modern anti-Semitis would help us sort out some of the mixture of streams occuring in the NAS article at present. Homey 13:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree that we may need two separate articles -- one dealing with a perceived motivational shift in anti-Semitism, another dealing with recent occurrences of anti-Semitism.
As I've noted many times in this discussion, it seems inappropriate to equate the two when the "old" anti-Semitism has not disappeared. CJCurrie 01:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Ref 74 and 75 are the same. Could someone fix it when the fighting is over.... Kjaergaard 01:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I've managed to snag a copy of Tanguieff's book, which I'll be reading in the upcoming week. The book itself is actually quite short, though unfortunately I'm busy with non-Wiki activities until Tuesday.
From what I can tell, it looks like another polemic. Perhaps I'll be pleasantly surprised. CJCurrie 01:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Can editors live with the intro in its current state? Homey 12:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not entirely happy with the current version, but I could live with it (for the most part).
I still think there are a number of improvements that should be made, and I certainly think it could be written more clearly. My suggestions, if the introduction is to be rewritten, are as follows:
(i) The introduction should state that the term "NAS" has emerged in response to a real phenomenon.
(ii) The introduction should clarify that there is disagreement as to the nature of the phenomenon.
(iii) The introduction should clarify that there is disagreement as to the extent of the phenomenon -- ie., that some believe it is applied too broadly.
(iv) The introduction should not define the NAS as both A) a contemporary international resurgence of anti-Semitism, and B) a perceived "new type" of anti-Semitism. As I've noted many times, these are not identical concepts -- the current international resurgence is premised in several sources, including "old" anti-Semitism. "B" may be a part of "A", but "B" does not equal "A".
The current introduction covers points (i) and (ii), and at least suggests (iii) -- reinserting the BFO quote would cover all bases. I still have serious concerns about (iv) that I'd like to see addressed. Comments welcome. CJCurrie 18:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't see the need for a personal attack. I replied to your email by stating I was happy with the introduction as it is now. I said that both in an email and on this talk page where I opened the "testing the house" section. Please explain how that answer is "bizarre". I believe I've also made it quite clear that I'm currently on an internship and am working long hours as a result with access to the internet for only about an hour a day. This limits my ability to be involved in any mediation. Had you accepted mediation when I proposed it I would have been able to participate more fully. As it is, if you want me to participate, you'll have to wait until the end of the month. If you can't wait that long then I'm afraid I'll have to say no to mediation for the time being. Homey 04:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I've caused a lot of trouble? Compare the introduction today to its state before I started "causing trouble" and you'll see it's much improved.
You should have agreed to it when I suggested it. At the moment, I have no time for this due to work commitments so if you want me to agree to mediation you'll have to wait until June. Homey 04:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
If one grants the theory of a "New anti-Semitism" (I myself have mixed feelings), there is an obvious parallel between the way that the rhetoric of Antisemetismus replaced the rhetoric of Judenhassen in the 19th century and the way that, in some cases, the rhetoric of "anti-Zionism" may now have supplanted "anti-Semitism", acting as a cover now that anti-Semitism is an equally discredited position. Does anyone know of someone citable who makes this argument? - Jmabel | Talk 04:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
It's also begging the question. Homey 06:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Putting things in that way assumes that the NAS theory is correct and that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitic. [ SV do you think that one can be anti-Zionist without being anti-Semitic? [User:HOTR|Homey]] 14:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC) [sig moved for clarity]
To answer your questions: No, of course not. Yes, Duke is an anti-Semite. Now, please answer my questions. Homey 14:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
The more germane question is is it anti-Semitic to a)be opposed to the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and b)be opposed to the legal, political and economic inequality of Israeli Arabs and Israeli Jews and c) favour a secular state where Israeli Jews, Arabs and others are fully equal politically, economically, legally and socially regardless of religion, ethnicity or culture? Is it anti-Semitic to believe that Israeli Arabs should be able, in practice, to be in cabinet positions up to and including Prime Minister and that the state should belong to all of its citizens, not just those who belong to a particular religion. Is it anti-Semitic to believe that all those who were born in what is now Israel or whose parents or grandparents were born there have the right to be citizens? Is it anti-Semitic to believe that Israeli Arabs should be allowed to buy land owned by the Jewish National Fund, should be allowed to be members of kibbutzim, should be able to live in any community in Israel. Is it anti-Semitic to believe that schools in Israel should be desegregated and that the publically funded system of religious schools be replaced with a single, public, secular and integrated school system. Is it anti-Semitic to describe aspects of the situation of Israel as apartheid? Is it anti-Semitic when leaders of the anti-apartheid struggle such as Desmond Tutu make the comparison? Homey 02:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
"As reputable authorities repeatedly state in our article, criticizing Israel is not antisemitism, but singling it out for demonization uncomparable with other countries - is"
Can one be anti-Zionist, ie opposed to the state of Israel without "demonizing" it? Please note, one who for a binational secular state that is not a "Jewish state" or "Palestinian state" per se can certainly be said to be opposed to the existence of a Jewish state. Is that anti-Semitic? If you want a state where Jews and Palestinians can live together side by side, a state where both are equal and welcome, a state that doesn't identify solely with one group or the other - if that's your position are you an anti-Semite? According to the dogma of New Anti-Semitism, yes, you are. Homey 14:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, you've lost me. Are you speaking here of the Palestinian or Jewish peoples? Homey 14:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept when we remembered Zion.
If, in fact, the Palestinians were the only people ever to be "hereditary refugees", the Babylonian exiles would never have returned and, indeed, Jews would have lost the "right of return" some time in the first century CE or so. Please set aside your double standard Jayjg. Homey 14:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm inclined to suggest we should hold off on mediation for a bit longer. I'm about to look over some of the source material recommended by SV, and would prefer to have the time to digest said material before mediation talks take place.
Please note that I was busy with non-Wiki matters for two days, and was not evading the question. CJCurrie 03:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I've said elsewhere that I would prefer to converse with the proposed mediator directly before agreeing. This isn't meant as a comment on the mediator's abilities; I simply want to be certain that the decision is appopropriate. CJCurrie 04:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I proposed it on April 16th. Since then I have been offered a three week "internship" which may lead to a permanent position. The internship began April 26th and is scheduled to end in two weeks buy may be extended another week depending on the state of the campaign. That means I'm unlikely to have much time until June. Homey 05:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Do you really want me to prove you wrong by posting the diffs?
That's not your decision to make. Mediation has to involve all parties. I am not able to participate until June for the reasons I have given. If you refuse to accomodate this, particularly after repeatedly denying my requests for mediation that were made when I did have time, you'll be "skating on thin ice" if you object to reversions I make because I disagree with a mediated settlement made in my absence. Homey 05:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Slim,
(i) Harping on a perceived 3RR violation is not especially civil, particularly given that the "offense" has not been repeated.
(ii) No one in this discussion is under any obligation to accept your nominee for mediation. Both Homey and I have given reasons for rejecting the offer for the time being (see above) -- however, either one of us would have been in our rights to dismiss the offer on purely procedural grounds.
(iii) There may be another method of approaching this situation without calling for mediation. All of the main contributors in the present discussion are veterans of the page, and our views are a matter of public record. Perhaps it would be useful to bring in neutral contributors with no prior involvement in the discussion, to offer non-binding suggestions for improvement. This might allow for "a fresh perspective" on some increasingly stale discussions, and it would still allow for the possibility of mediation in a month's time. Would this be agreeable to you? CJCurrie 05:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Update:
I have spoken with the proposed mediator, and would agree to accept him in a month's time, subject to certain clarifications to which he seems agreeable.
His letter to me indicated that he would be willing to defer mediation to a time suitable to all parties.
Responses to SV:
That was the point of the mediation: to get a fresh perspective from an experienced editor.
Mediation is a way of getting a fresh perspective from experienced editors; it is not the only way.
You've only said no because Homey did
Please stop impugning motive, Slim: I said no because you were willing to begin mediation without the consent of another contributor and I considered this inappropriate. I suppose you could interpret this as "saying no because Homey did", but it leaves out a rather significant middle step.
you had already agreed in principle.
I agreed in principle to mediation some time ago, and I've just now indicated that I'm willing to accept this proposed mediator in a month's time. I never gave any indication, provisionally or otherwise, that I would accept "mediation by this person, right now".
I strongly urge you not to follow Homey's lead on this, CJC, because he has been very disruptive.
You accused me of similar behaviour not so long ago, Slim. I strongly disagreed with your assessment then, and I disagree with it now as well. Homey has given a credible reason for not being able to participate in discussions; accusing him of "being very disruptive" does not bring the discussion forward.
I'm rapidly arriving at the conclusion that it might be better for all of us to take a step back for a few weeks, and solicit the opinions of others. CJCurrie 20:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
"We've already had this disruption since mid-April,"
SV, you may do better if you ceased describing the edits you disagree with as "disruptions". It's simply the wrong attitude to have for wikipedia. Homey 04:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
So let's see, the first time this page was protected it was not my preferred version. A second time I put up a protection request and then rescinded it, the page was subsequenly protected independently. Sorry, no game playing there. As for mediation, check my edit times and IPs - it is you who are assuming bad faith and making innuendos. Homey 00:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't have time to read the whole thing thoughroughly but in reading the first section I have one serious criticism. The 4th paragraph of the 'nature of' section (starting with Alan Dershowitz) is what I'm talking about. This paragraph tries to make a kind of logic out of comparing criticism specifically of isreal with an example of a jerk from harvard, who definately was anti-semetic, in the 1920s. While there is a certain parallel in the language I think this is a false parallel to be making. Either this paragraph should be removed or it should be indicated that this logic is that of the book by Dershowitz, which I'm not sure if it is the case, I don't know the book.
Overall my very shallow impression of this article is this: There are these kind of political activists who are on the right wing and are trying to promote this term and concept as a way of promoting their views about isreals imperialism. There is a large internet presence of disruptive trolls who attack Indymedi with this kind of thing. Personally I don't agree with their view. However, I think they do have a point. There probably is some new modern leftist kind of anti-semitism out there. The thing is to have a wikipedia article that is honest about that and not just a podium for the trolls political views. The trolls are often not reasonable at all about this and all sorts of crazy disinformation flies every which way as it tends to in IMC when people talk about Isreal/Palestine.
The truth of this all is not black and white. Fortunately wikipedia is good at handling sophisticated contradictions. Yes Isreal is imperialistic and racist there are deceitful arguements to justify it. Yes anti jewish anti semetic racism is rampant and is sometimes manifest by unfairly targeting isreal, by having double standards and not seeing how more people are killed in other conflicts in africa for instance.
So the tools to deal with this wikipedia has are #1 the easy links which mean you can put discussion of the seperate topic, military history of the middle east or jewish customs... put that all away in a different topic somewhere else where it is less convoluted. #2 Present all sides (there are more than two) in their own section so that the thing presents opinion as such.
I think this article is too long, it should just discuss the term. There should be a seperate section or entry for the 'concept' part.
Kudos to all of you wading through this who are better informed than me. Racism is such a load of crap, look where it leads us. Too bad it is so old and permeates so many things. Actually, I would like to point out that my understanding of history is that these things are not as old as they claim to be. 154.20.109.121 09:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)rusl
HOTR posted above that it was our fault that he couldn't take part in the mediation, because he'd first suggested it on April 16, but we were too slow to say yes, and now he's too busy.
However, he last suggested it on April 26: "Let's take this to mediation. If you are confident that your position reflects Wikipedia policy than you have no reason to fear mediation." Homey 22:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC) [6]
I suggested on April 28 that we'd be unlikely to find a formal mediator, so I offered to look for an informal one. I contacted Mel, he agreed, and I e-mailed Homey with that offer on April 30 — within four days of Homey's suggestion. This puts paid to his claim that he would have had time if only we had agreed earlier. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
So you want me to agree to a mediation process that I can't participate in? Homey 00:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
As I've said earlier, I asked for mediation last month but SV refused. I don't see why "The World Does Not Revolve Around You" didn't apply then but applies now, but of course, as this debate is all about double standards anyways I guess it shouldn't be a surprise. If SV saw no hurry to agree to mediation last month I don't see why she suddenly sees an urgent need now. Of course, I guess it's possible she may be suggesting mediation because she knows I'm unavailable but it's not for me to question motives. If she, and you, truly want mediation involving everyone then you should be willing to accomodate by waiting a few weeks. Homey 00:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
SV, the reason I "wouldn't respond properly" is because I've been working 14 hour days, 7 days a week since the end of April. I have told you this several times, including in email responses to you, but you refuse to accept this at face value and are instead making various insinuations. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I suggest before you again suggest that I am not telling the truth regarding my employment situation you a) count up exactly how much time I've spent on wikipedia since the beginning of the month and b) ask someone to run a checkIP on my edits for the last few weeks.
I don't see how you can throw out accusations because you don't get an immediate response (sorry, I don't live on wikipedia right now) and make varioius personal attacks and then expect someone not to respond with annoyance.
Frankly, that you insist on proceeding with mediation after I've told you both privately and publicly (more recently) that I have limited time online for the next few weeks makes one wonder whether you are doing this deliberately. Don't expect people not to question your sincerity when you do nothing but question the sincerity of others. Homey 02:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Homey did not tell me privately he could not engage in mediation. Timeline:
Homey did not tell me privately he could not engage in mediation. Timeline:
Please check exactly how much time I spent online in those days and the IP addresses from which I've been posting. In any case, I sent CJCurrie an email on April 30th which said "With my current job (I'm interning as a [deleted]) I'm only on wiikpedia for a few minutes a day so I don't really have much time to get heavily involved, particularly when it comes to doing research." I had thought I had sent that to you as well but it seems according to my records I did not so I am sorry for that. However, I did send you the CJCurrie email prior to your posting the timeline above so I think it's somewhat disengenuous for you to have posted the timeline given the information I've given you.
I responded to the request for mediation by saying I didn't think it was necessary because the state of the intro as it was is satisfactory and by trying to determine whether 1) SV could live with the intro as it is and b) whether others are. SV has never, as far as I can tell, given me a direct answer about the intro or what she wants changed. The backstory for my response is time-related ie if everyone can live with the intro then we don't need mediation which I don't have time for. Had SV responded to my inquiry regarding whether or not she could live with the status quo sooner then I would have given her a yes or no answer sooner. As it was, she ignored my questions and insisted on a yes or no to mediation. Given my work situation at present I had no option but to say no. Evidently, SV does not take very well to being told no so she's responded with something of a tantrum sending me emails threatening to have my desysopped if I do not agree to mediation and starting a personal campaign against me here. Homey 15:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, to be precise, you sent me an email threatening to take me to the arbcomm if I did not agree to immediate mediation (rather than wait ten days for mediation) and you then sent me a separate email telling me I should be desysopped. Homey 00:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
From: slimvirgin
To: (name deleted)
Date: May 6, 2006 9:38 PM
Subject: Re: New anti-Semitism
Then please bow out of the article. I'm guessing you only became involved because CJCurrie asked you to. Since then all you've done is cause trouble, upset people, and made yourself look bad. You should be desysopped over your behavior on that page. It makes me look back to Armchair-whatever his name was, and makes me regret helping you, because now I wonder whether that was your fault all along.
I know you think the intro has improved because of you, but things would have moved a lot faster without you.
With CJCurrie on board and Mel Etitis mediating, we'll produce a good article. I don't think we will with you involved, because you've created a lot of hostility. Please leave us alone.
E-mail posted above. I leave it for others to judge whether I was, as he alleged, "threatening to have [him] desysopped if [he does] not agree to mediation." The one thing I've learned from this is never to correspond privately with HOTR again. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
There was also another email which began with "I would carefully consider my position in your shoes." then threatened to take me to the arbcomm and detailed my alleged crimes after which you said "Please come to your senses. Either join us in mediation or tell us that you'll leave the page alone from now on."
There was then a second email telling me I "should be desysopped". I think most reasonable people would see that as a threat to agree to immediate mediation or else. Remember that I have already said I'm fine with mediation as long as it beings in a few weeks time. What we see is a temper tantrum from SV, you want it now because you want it now and I'd better agree to what you want now or else. Homey 00:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how your two emails together can be seen as anything but a threat. You open by telling me to "carefully consider my position", talk about the case going to arbcomm, tell me I should agree to mediation, send me a second email saying I "should be desysopped" but no, that's not a threat. Can you even see why I might have felt threatened when I read the emails? Will you at least concede that much? Homey 00:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
To CJCurrie above, SlimVirgin says: "No worries, CJ. Can I tell the mediator that you agree but would prefer that it start in, say, a week's time? SlimVirgin (talk) 04:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)" which would have placed the start time for mediation at May 11. My internship is scheduled to end at the 17th but may be extended to the 24th yet my request for an extra six to thirteen days results in a firestorm of abuse, personal attacks, insinuations that my request is not legitimate, calls for me to back out of the article etc by Jay and SV amongst others and what any reasonable and objective person would see as a threat to take me to the arbcomm and/or have me desysopped if I refuse to agree to immediate mediation. Homey 01:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Two comments:
(i) I will reiterate that the proposed mediator has informed me that he's willing to defer mediation until all parties have agreed on a suitable timeframe. I believe in principle that mediation is required for this article, but I don't see that waiting for three weeks is an insurmountable problem (particularly given that it would likely take this long for an official mediation process to begin).
(ii) I believe that the current participants in this discussion should make use of this three week period to solicit opinions from neutral Wikipedians who have not previously participated in this discussion. My reasons are as follows: a) the discussions on this page have become stale and predictable, and soliciting outside perspectives would be useful, b) tempers are very frayed at present, and a "time out" for all of the main participants might improve the civility of discourse, c) this discussion is already quite long and imposing for new arrivals, and a pause would give other Wikipedians a chance to catch up on the main points of contention.
CJCurrie 21:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
CJCurrie invited me to look over this debate. I thought of several things to say about the article and I thought of several things to say about the above dispute, but then I decided they added little! As far as I can see, there is broad support for the idea of mediation, but a disagreement over the timeframe. In that situation, it would seem sensible to me to actively involve the mediator and let the mediator help resolve the dispute over the details of the process of mediation. CJCurrie suggests that "it would likely take this long for an official mediation process to begin", i.e. the delay Homey requests. If that is so, go forward with a formal request for mediation now, but flag these issues up to the mediator. If the mediation process gets going before Homey is able to devote more time to it, then he and/or CJCurrie can raise that issue with the mediator and the mediator can propose a course of action. If the mediation process takes three or more weeks to get going anyway, then the whole matter is moot. Bondegezou 16:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. I'm not certain that a formal request for mediation is needed at present: SlimVirgin's nominee is someone that most (perhaps all) parties consider trustworthy, and there's no guarantee that someone chosen by the mediation committee would command a similar level of respect. If others want to initiate a formal request for mediation, however, I won't stand in the way. CJCurrie 22:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
My internship is over so I can participate in mediation now if people want to proceed. Homey 16:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Why are Michael Neumanns views on anti-semitism notable? I thought that with his 'history' of comments/associations he would be ineligible. Gilead 12:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
There's a matter that I'd like to clear up before Mel arrives.
When SlimVirgin contacted me concerning Mel's offer to mediate the page, she indicated that the mediator's final decisions should be binding on all participants. I made no comment on this at the time.
I later indicated that I would accept Mel's offer of mediation, subject to a few clarifications. I spoke to Mel about these, and was satisfied with his response.
The only clarification that need be mentioned on this forum concerns the possibility of an appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Although I have high regard for Mel Etitis's abilities to mediate this dispute, I believe that participants in the present discussion would be ill-advised to deny themselves the option of an appeal to higher authorities within Wikipedia. No one contributor, however uniquely situated to hold the trust of all parties, should be given an absolute carte blanche discretion as regards the future of this page.
When I spoke to Mel, I indicated that I would insist on retaining the possibility of an appeal to the ArbComm. He agreed that this would be acceptable.
I should clarify that I am not mentioning this now to poison the mediation process, nor to position myself for a frivolous appeal if the mediator's decision is contrary to my preference. I hope that the mediation will be successful, and I will endeavour to make it so. I will also make every reasonable effort to avoid the necessity of an appeal, even in the mediator's decision results in a page with which I entirely disagree. Nonetheless, I must insist that the path to appeal remain open.
I had planned to mention this earlier, but the previous delay in mediation rendered the matter temporarily irrelevant. CJCurrie 22:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I should have worded my previous message to read "the ArbComm and other higher authorities in Wikipedia", though it's possible that the ArbComm could intervene here on a procedural matter.
In any event, I can affirm that I will (i) make every effort to make the mediation process work, and (ii) not appeal to any higher Wikipedia authority except as an absolute last resort. This is as much as I expect from all other participants. CJCurrie 23:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I can give three responses to the second question:
To the first question, I can only respond as follows: an appeal to the appropriate overseeing body. I emphasize that I do not anticipate the need for any such an appeal in this context. CJCurrie 23:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I suspect that there's no way to make a mediation process enjoyable for anyone, nor to avoid a fair bit of repetition of what's already been said in the dispute. I hope, though, to provide a clean sheet — a way for those who have been involved in the dispute, and who have gradually slipped into acrimony and personal antagonism, to step back and simply discuss the issues again. To that end I've started a mediation page at which I ask those involved each to give a brief neutral account of the dispute (trying to explain it in a way that would be accepted by all sides), and then to say how they think it would be best resolved.
My hope is that this will at least begin to get everyone away from the personal aspects of the dispute and back to what matters — the quality of the article.
If anyone has any objection to this way of doing things, could they leave a comment at my Talk page? -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 13:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I've now down-loaded the mediation page as well as the current article, and I'll be going through all the material off-line (just to reassure people that I haven't just drifted off and left the matter). As soon as I think that I've grasped all the positions, and perhaps have some ideas as to how to start resolving the dispute, I'll come back here and lay out some suggestions (or ask some more questions). -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 16:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Juan Cole, a Michigan historian and pundit, has also written on about this subject. In the context of 2002 when many were concerned about the deterioriate situation in the Occupied Territories, Cole argued that some where using the label of "anti-Semitism" to silence criticisms of the policies of Arial Sharon's government:
From: Juan Cole, The Misuses of Anti-Semitism, George Mason University's History News Network, September 20, 2002.
Removed trolling by banned user Zordrac ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- Malber ( talk • contribs) 15:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC) Sorry but your arguments are completely nonsensical. Also please see WP:AGF.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
The anon user is a previously blocked user, I have banned the user for personal attacks and trolling. Homey 14:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
As soon as the " Anti-Zionism" section "Socialist Anti-Zionism" is restored, there should be some discussion on possible connections between the original socialist anti-Zionism (consider Lenin's attacks on anti-Semitism with the simultaneous ban on the usage of Hebrew and the attack on the Jewish Bund) and the "new anti-Semitism." Darth Sidious 22:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I think you're overreaching. At the very least you're getting into original research. Homey 22:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
But there WAS the section "Socialist Anti-Zionism" in the main "Anti-Zionism" article. At the very least, whoever removed that section should put it back. By the way, that section goes beyond mere Bolshevik anti-Zionism, but also discusses anti-Zionism in relation to the Second International and other Marxists (see Rosa Luxemburg and then-Menshevik Leon Trotsky). Darth Sidious 23:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry that this taking so long. There was an awful lot of material left at the pages I started, as well as the discussion at this Talk page, and the history of the article to go through. (And I have a real life, including undergraduates for whom I'm responsible, and who are sitting their Finals and Prelims this term.)
One thing is clear: there is absolutely no mileage in assigning blame for the situation that was reached. Aside from the fact that it would serve no useful purpose, there are faults on all sides, and totting up numbers and degrees of sins would be a horrible, divisive, and ultimately nugatory task.
What we really need to do is get basic agreement on the shape and content of the article. There is, in fact. considerable agreement among those involved on the general principles, and even on much of the specific content — the problem is partly that people differ over issues of organisation and emphasis, partly that their positions have become more extreme and inflexible over the course of the dispute, and partly some genuine disagreements of a more substantial nature.
I think that everyone agrees that the summary should be completely neutral, introducing the main way that the term "the new anti-Semitism" is used, and indicating briefly the existence and main approaches of those who defend and criticise it. What do editors think of the following attempt at this? It lacks the references, which can be inserted in the appropriate places (I've stuck to material from the summary as it stands at the moment, only presenting it in a more neutral way):
I've tried to keep this neutral between all opinions, and I don't think that it makes any assumptions about the actual instantiation of the concept or the truth of the competing views. If this is acceptable, we could move on to the more controversial sections. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 22:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Mel,
Thank you for your recommendation. I believe I can accept much of what you've written, although some modifications and/or additions may yet be in order.
I'll provide a more detailed response once I've considered the matter further. My initial response, though, is mostly favourable. CJCurrie 02:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I actually think that intro is biased. Its the sort of intro you would write for alien abductions whether you are questioning whether the entire thing is a farce. It questions whether there are any anti-Semetic incidents (we have murders, synagogues being blown up, vandalism, public support for all sorts anti Israeli slogans, an anti-Jewish rape, machine attacks against El Al airlines passengers....) there are unquestionably incidents "is the concept of an international resurgence" has to go. Opponents of the term by in large are apologists or advocates for political terror. The arguments over new anti-semitism is whether this particular types of attacks are justified based on political circumstance that would apply to anyone or whether they are being justified based on who is the target.
That is discussing western anti-zionism without discussing their use of political terror is like discussing the 19th century klan while discounting the existence of lynching. There can disagreement as to whether the Klan was involved in "resistance to occupation" or "terrorism" but there can be no disagreement that they were engaged in violence. I don't see how this is a compromise. It basically accepts the legitimacy of anti-Zionism which begs the question. jbolden1517 Talk 05:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
"It questions whether there are any anti-Semetic incidents (we have murders, synagogues being blown up, vandalism, public support for all sorts anti Israeli slogans, an anti-Jewish rape, machine attacks against El Al airlines passengers....)"
Jbolden, I have trouble reconciling your claim above with this line from what Mel has written (emphasis added):
"The term was used as early as 1974, but entered common usage to refer to a wave of anti-Semitism that escalated, particularly in Western Europe, after the Second Intifada in 2000"
It's clearly stated as a fact that there was "a wave of anti-Semitism that escalated..." I don't see how how this "questions whether there are any anti-Semitic incidents".
I think you are conflating the rise of anti-Semitic inicidents, which is stated as a plain fact, with the intrepretation of these incidents as indicative of anything that is qualitatively "New" - which is a theory. Homey 06:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Why does being "controversial" disqualify it from being mentioned in the lead? And Tariq Ali is a notable figure on the left - notable enough to have his own article, for instance. As has been pointed out earlier his article has appeared in a number of publications, not just Counterpunch. If you don't like Conterpunch being referenced for some reason we can reference another publication the same article has appeared in. Homey 14:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
That would be a start, but I still think there are a lot more neutral sources than Tariq Ali that could be used in its stead.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 16:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
That makes no sense - you want us to quote a "neutral" critic of NAS? If the opening is referencing a *critic* of the term then, by definition, that person isn't going to be neutral just as you aren't going to find any neutral proponents of the term. Read
NPOV, you are confusing the neutrality of the article as a whole with the neutrality of sources. In cases where an idea is constested, as is NAS, NPOV one doesn't need to use all neutral sources, one must just ensure that sources supporting one POV are balanced out with sources supporting a contrary POV.
Homey 16:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
"I never said that we have to use a completly neutral source for everything, I am saying we shoud use a more neutral or unbiased source."
The principle remains the same NPOV does not require us to use "more neutral" or "unbiased" sources to source one side's POV ie NPOV does not mean you can't have POVs in the article, it just means those POVs must be sourced and should be balanced by countervaling POVs. That is the case in Mel's suggested opening. Your desire for a "neutral", "more neutral" or "unbiased" source for the view critical of NAS is not sustained by policy. I understand your desire to water down criticism of a concept you are defending but it is *that* that is not NPOV. Homey 16:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Just to interject: The Tariq Ali article is fine for what it is, but I've long believed we should use a more scholarly text to represent NAS-opposition in the intro. I'd prefer replacing Ali with something from Brian Klug or Norman G. Finkelstein, personally.
(Btw, I finished reading Finkelstein's "Beyond Chutzpah" last week, and I now believe this should be required reading for anyone interested in this debate. The first third of the book is a scathing criticism of modern usage of the term "NAS", with extended criticisms of several titles written by NAS-proponents.) CJCurrie 21:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd be fine substituting a suitable Klug or Finkelstein quotation for Ali though I think Ali's comments belong somewhere in the article. Homey 21:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Suggested Finkelstein quotes (all taken from Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History):
The latest production of Israel's apologists is the "new anti-Semitism". [...] As it happens, the allegation of a new anti-Semitism is neither new nor about anti-Semitism. Thirty years ago, ADL national leaders Arnold Forster and Benjamin R. Epstein published to great fanfare a study entitled The New Anti-Semitism, and less than a decade later ADL national leader Nathan Perlmutter (with his wife, Ruth Ann Perlmutter) put out The Real Anti-Semitism in America, alleging yet again that the United States was awash in a new anti-Semitism. The main purpose behind these periodic, meticulously orchestrated media extravaganzas is not to fight anti-Semitism but rather to exploit the historical suffering of Jews in order to immunize Israel against criticism. Each campaign to combat the "new anti-Semitism" has coincided with renewed international pressures on Israel to withdraw from occupied Arab territories in exchange for recognition from neighbouring Arab states." (pp. 21-22)
How little the "real" anti-Semitism had to do with the genuine article and how much with criticism of Israeli policy could be gleaned from the Perlmutters' preference for the Christian right, which was steeped in anti-Jewish bigotry but "pro"-Israel, as against liberal Protestantism, which was free of anti-Jewish bigotry but "anti"-Israel: [an extended quote follows]." (p. 30)
What's currently called the new anti-Semitism actually incorporates three main components: (1) exaggeration and fabrication, (2) mislabeling legitimate criticism of Israeli policy, and (3) the unjustified yet predictable spillover from criticism of Israel to Jews generally. (p. 66)
CJCurrie 01:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I was slightly worried about retaining the two quotations; specific material like that can be introduced later in the article. How about this, then?
-- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 22:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
As before, I'm inclined to accept this on principle while allowing for some further modifications/additions. CJCurrie 23:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll take it. Because its shorter my objections go away and can be explored in the main article. jbolden1517 Talk 23:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the article makes for a better read with quotations in the lead. If individuals are objecting to Ali could we find a quotation from Klug or Finkelstein? Homey 23:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I'll go with the second version then. I'd like the quotations (on both sides) worked into the body of the article though. Homey 18:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
New anti-Semitism is the concept of an international resurgence of anti-Semitic incidents and attacks on Jewish symbols and institutions, as well as the acceptance of anti-Semitic beliefs and their expression in public discourse, which is held to be associated with certain left-wing political views. The adjective "new" is used to distinguish this form of anti-Semitism from the older, traditionally right-wing form. The term was used as early as 1974, but entered common usage to refer to a wave of anti-Semitism that escalated, particularly in Western Europe, after the Second Intifada in 2000, the failure of the Oslo accords, and the September 11, 2001 attacks.
Denis Diderot makes some good points; in particular, this article is about a phenomenon, not a concept. Jayjg (talk) 22:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
That's not quite what M. Diderot said. Notwithstanding that, I agree that he has raised some valid points, largely relating to the divergent usages of the term.
In the most general sense, "new anti-Semitism" has the same meaning as "contemporary anti-Semitism" (referring to any and all recent manifestations of anti-Semitism). In a more specific sense, however, the term has been used since 1974 (and especially since 2001) to identify modern occurrences of anti-Semitism as emanating from a particular theoretical framework.
The general meaning refers to a phenomenon. The specific meaning is theoretical and has been the subject of considerable debate; I would identify it as a "theory", but I'll settle for "concept" as a compromise term.
For all intents and purposes, the main body of this article is about the specific meaning. Accordingly, I believe that Mel's suggested introduction is appropriate to the information that follows ... although it may be necessary to add more information in order to clarify alternate meanings and usages.
Prior to 6 March 2006, the article's introduction distinguished between the general and specific meanings of the term. It may be useful to restore some of the information which was removed on that and other occasions. CJCurrie 01:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
By the way, would I be correct in assuming that Mel chose the word "concept" as a compromise between "fact" and "theory", endorsing neither but allowing for the possibility of each? CJCurrie 02:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Do Moshe, Humus and Jay support renaming this article New anti-Semitism (epithet)? Homey 06:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Homey, if you start this up again, I will take you to the arbcom and ask that they ban you from editing this article, and that they consider your abuse of your admin tools. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Which admin tools have I abused? The article isn't protected. All I've done is add a few qualifiers. Homey 20:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
SV, keep Wikipedia:Civility in mind. You should not blow up over changing "said" to "claimed", it's ridiculous. Homey 20:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Good editors don't throw temper tantrums over a minor editing dispute. Homey 22:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Because of your AWOL you never answered any of the questions put to you nor any of the responses to your statement.
Copied from the mediation page:
The "New anti-Semitism" article had a significantly different introduction on 16 June 2005. This prior version distinguished the general phenomenon of "new anti-Semitism" from the specific theory of "New anti-Semitism", and noted the latter's controversial linkage of anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism.
Significant changes followed. I would draw the attention of readers to an edit from 09:01, 18 June 2005, which (i) seems to undermine the distinction between "new" and "New" anti-Semitism, and (ii) removes the phrase "This view presupposes a connection between the New anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism". Another editor later attempted to restore the distinction between "new" and "New", at which time the first editor reverted the page back to her version.
The introduction was then altered again on 25 December 2005 by an editor with a very limited posting history. This edit defines "NAS" more narrowly, though also noting that the term may be used in different ways to mean different things.
A subsequent edit on 3 January 2006 marks another significant change, including the first insertion of the phrase, "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." This is stated as a matter of fact, although the previous sentence indicates that this "new form" is only "alleged".
This edit from 5 March 2006 removes all reference to the general meaning of the term, and in so doing removes the distinction between "new" and "New" anti-Semitism. It also elevates the "NAS" from "a theory" to "a fact".
I am not certain that any of these changes were for the better -- the intro of 16 June 2005 seems far more lucid and balanced than that of 10 April 2006. I will also observe that the edit summaries (apart from that of 25 December) give little indication of the definitional changes. CJCurrie 22:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Would you care to comment on these changes? CJCurrie 22:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Since your back, maybe you can respond to CJCurrie's question? Homey 23:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
And SV, are you seriously claiming that you haven't been POV pushing in this article since you joined it? Complete from elevating NAS from a theory to a fact because that is your dearly held POV? You have absolutely no objectivity in this article or any article to do with Israel or Zionism. If anyone should recuse themselves, it's you. Homey 23:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind, I'm not going to respond to baiting. Homey 23:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
No. I'm tired of this. I just think you lack perspective on certain issues and that it would help if you developed a tendency for self-criticism. Homey 23:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
And I think you need to take some responsibility for your own role in this conflict. You are not NPOV on this issue yet you behave as if you are and as if your POV is fact while everyone else should be dismissed. A good editor knows her biases, admits them and tries to compensate for them. Homey 23:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to recuse myself from this article for three months. You should consider recusing yourself as well and leaving it to other editors. Homey 23:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
At the very least, you should recuse yourself from Israeli apartheid where you and Jay have played the precise same role you accuse me of playing here. Homey 23:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
1) Encyclopedia articles may describe ideas or reality. They may do both in the same article but not at the same time. Some things are only ideas, such as, for example, a unicorn. There are no real unicorns, but that's not a problem. There's no need to create Unicorn (term) to distinguish it from real unicorns. The problem with this article on new anti-Semitism is that it often isn't clear whether the text refers to a concept, a term, or reality.
To take but one example: a concept can't be controversial as such. Only some claim made _about_ the concept can be controversial. Only the claim that there _is_ a new anti-Semitism, where "new anti-Semitism" is understood in a specific sense is controversial. There are also many claims involving the phrase "the new anti-Semitism" that are uncontroversial.
2)"The new anti-Semitism" isn't a single concept. It is a term or phrase. Different people who speak or write about "the new anti-Semitism" or "a new anti-Semitism" attach different meanings to the expression. There are several concepts of "new anti-Semitism". This is one factor which makes this Wikipedia article difficult to write. It isn't like writing an article about Paris or chimpanzees. Because of the NPOV principle we can't single out only one meaning of the term. I have given many examples here, and I will write more about the early history of the term below.
It is simply incorrect to say, as the current article does, that "[t]he adjective 'new' is used to distinguish this form of anti-Semitism as differing in its rhetoric, professed purpose, and place on the political spectrum from the old anti-Semitism, which is associated with the Right and motivated by racial theory, religion, or nationalism." _Most_ people use the term with this connotation, but many do not. And what exactly is a "proponent of the term new anti-Semitism"? Is that someone with a t-shirt saying "new anti-Semitism"?
3) Putting the word "new" in front of the word "anti-Semitism" is obviously not especially creative. As long as people have been talking about anti-Semitism, they have occasionally referred to some "new anti-Semitism". But the term acquired a more distinct meaning after World War II. "New anti-Semitism" generally meant post-Hitler anti-Semitism. It was an obvious fact the the defeat of Nazism was an enormous global setback for anti-Semitism. It didn't disappear completely, of course, but it became largely sub-surface. Until the early 1970s there are only occasional references to any "new anti-Semitism", usually with reference to Eastern Europe.
Perhaps the first mainstream reference to the new anti-Semitism as a major phenomenon was Lipset's 1971 article in New York Times. He made the typical observation that the new anti-Semitism was associated with the political left, whereas the old had been mainly a right-wing phenomenon. But he also _included_ the resurging right wing anti-Semitism as part of the phenomenon. The new anti-Semitism is often associated with criticism of Israel, but it differs from normal criticism of Israel, because it focuses on Jews as such and "implies that Jews are guilty of some primal evil". Lipset also discussed Arab anti-Semitism at some length.
The 1974 ADL report by Forster and Epstein was very different in it's approach. It was much more focused on criticism of Israel. The basic argument (also used by Abba Eban and others) was that any completely disproportionate criticism of Israel or Zionism was anti-Semitic in nature; if Jews were denied the rights granted to all other peoples, then that implied anti-Jewish intentions, sentiment or prejudice.
During the final decades of the 20th century there was still not much discussion of the "new anti-Semitism" outside academic and Jewish cirles. The discussion usually revolved around specific anti-Semitic acts (e.g. the 1982 attack on Rome's main synagogue). Some people, e.g. Per Ahlmark, 1989, have argued that the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon led to a radical rise of European anti-Semitism. "Before 1982, denying the Holocaust or trivializing it by cheap comparisons would have been unacceptable in the media. Now such comparisons are commonplace." (Ahlmark used the term "old-new anti-Semitism")
One important thread of the early "new anti-Semitism" discussion concerned the Nation of Islam in the US and related movements. In 1992 Henry Louis Gates Jr. wrote about the book The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews. [1] He called it "the bible of the new [black] anti-Semitism", "one of the most sophisticated instances of hate literature yet compiled" which "massively mis-represents the historical record".
-- Denis Diderot 20:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Can you suggest some changes, Denis? If you could either edit the article directly or post suggested changes to the talk page it would be helpful. Homey 01:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
SV wrote in her edit summary: "don't repeat inaccurate criticism from CJC" See direct quotation: "A direct quotation is a clear quotation said by a person and generally involves a whole sentence; it is absolutely verbatim in the order and is specific."
Clearly, parsing the sentence by including a period where one was not originally is a violation of this concept. The fact that you have now changed your rendering of the quotation to do away with the period you added suggests that, in fact, you know CJC's criticism was in fact valid. Homey 23:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Moshe, it's not my "addition to the quote", I added nothing to it, I simply substituted SV's truncation of a sentence with a direct quotation (ie one in which the sentence being quoted is complete). I do not see how anyone can possibly claim this to be improper. Homey 22:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
We quote people's opinions all the time Pecher. If we did not we wouldn't have half the articles we do (including this one which consists entirely of people's opinions. Our task is not to censor opinions we don't like but make sure that the opinions cited are properly attributed. That's all. Homey 22:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Let's take this to mediation. If you are confident that your position reflects Wikipedia policy than you have no reason to fear mediation. Homey 22:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I just deleted the reference to the notorious anti semite Michael Neumann being Jewish, there is NO cite for that. Incorrect 14:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh look, here's a European Union survey. Zionist plot. Obvious, innit.
Have you actually read the European Union survey? CJCurrie 02:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Why then are you suggesting that it blames recent manifestations of anti-Semitism on a Zionist plot, when it does nothing of the sort?
Feel free to provide a source to back up your original claim. CJCurrie 03:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Is anyone interested in finding an experienced editor who understands the content policies to be an informal mediator? I could probably find one who would be impartial if people think that would be helpful. The mediation committee is very tied up so formal mediation is probably not available. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Please work out your differences instead of edit warring. · Ka t efan0 (scribble)/ poll 03:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out WP:NPA. I wasn't aware of it and will reaffirm my resolve to edit WP rather than.... Back to the topic. Can anyone say why the following is not a useful beginning:
The meaning of the term New anti-Semitism is debated. Its meaning has changed since the first recorded use in 1902 in an Encyclopedia Britannica article. [1] At that time the term meant what some historians now call "modern anti-Semitism" (racial anti-Semitism, as opposed to pre-19th century anti-semitism which was mainly religious). The term was revived in 1971 in the New York Times Magazine [2] and in 1974 [3]. The revival of the term sparked debate because etc etc
placed by Mccready 12:54, 28 April 2006
I'd like to add a link to the "Organizations and forums whose stated aim is to fight anti-Semitism"
Ilka Schroder, a Christian German former member of the European parliament as part of the Green party has created an institute to fight new anti-semtiism. The main page is http://www.ilka.org/ and some pages are available in English at http://www.ilka.org/index_en.html.
Its been a few days an no one is objecting so I'll make it official jbolden1517 Talk 15:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Can I ask anyone why this is an issue. Everyone agreed to this link? jbolden1517 Talk 23:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Well I guess I'll change it back.
[This originally was a response to a snip by me, but I moved it so that it gets pulled out of the silly conversation it was originally part of since it deserves a serious discussion jbolden1517 Talk 21:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)]
Again, this takes us back to the fundamental problem of people simply not having read up about it. The definition is not so vague, although we're not being allowed to flesh it out in the intro. It is a form of Judenhass that emanates from the left. It is characterized by the demonization of the world's only Jewish state and of Jews as an ethnicity and a religion. Israel's right to exist as an equal member of the world community is denied. The Jewish people's right of self-determination is denied. Double standards are applied, whereby the actions of the Jewish state are judged according to a different standard from, say, the actions of all the neighboring states around her. Jews as a people are held collectively responsible for the actions of the Jewish state. Symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism are used: for example, blood libels are resurrected, the Jewish state and Jewish people are associated with wild conspiracy theories involving Jews or Zionists or Israelis plotting to take over the world, or being in control of other governments, or being responsible behind the scenes for various acts of terror mistakenly attributed to others. Arab and Islamic anti-Semitism are excused and ignored. Straw-man attacks are engaged in (as in the current intro), whereby Jews are alleged to claim that any criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism, and that is then used to condemn Jewish groups as unreasonable, and to deny that there is any such thing as the "new anti-Semitism." All of the above is accompanied by an international resurgence of violence against Jews and their synagogues and schools, particularly in Europe. It is found in conjunction with anti-Americanism (because Jews are believed either to control or be too influential with the American government), anti-Zionism, and the anti-globalization movement.
The above is the new anti-Semitism. We are not being allowed to say any of this in the intro, because people who have not read the literature are telling us there is no such phenomenon, even though they do know there is, because they almost certainly recognize the description. They may simply call it something else. If they do call it something else (or have no name for it), that is their original research. Authoritative sources are calling it "the new anti-Semitism." SlimVirgin (talk) 21:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Bad analogy. First of all I think it's questionable, if not offensive, to compare those who question NAS to Holocaust deniers (talk about guilt by association). Second, SV's premise is incorrect - all NAS *proponents* agree there is a NAS but not all who research anti-Semitism share that conclusion. Frankly, having had a father and grandfather who survived detention in the Transnestria cocentration camps and a grandmother who died in Auschwitz I find the comparision personally offensive. Please don't trivialise the Holocaust for the purpose of creating a tortured analogy. Homey 02:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
"Quit the amateur dramatics." No, an example of amateur dramatics is using specious analogies to the Holocaust or to Nazis, see Godwin's Law in an attempt to insulate your argument and discredit others. SV, plese try to restrict your arguments to the merits or demerits of various proposals rather than trying to discredit views you disagree with through gratuitous use of guilt by association. You seem addicted to the use of various logical fallacies whether they be this one, appeal to authority, or ones that CJCurrie has brought up. I think you know enough not to do this so please refrain from cheap debating union tricks from now on. Personally, I am offended when people invoke specious comparisons to the Holocaust to promote their particular argument whether it's "pro-lifers" describing abortion as a Holocaust or certain Israeli politicians comparing the Holocaust to the withdrawal of settlers or other policies or indeed if its anti-Zionists comparing the treatment of the Palestinians to the Holocaust. It's wrong and offensive in every instance, SV, including the case in which you did this and yes, I do find it personally offensive and revolting so please respect that and desist. Homey 13:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Nobody, not one person, is "denying" anti-Semitic incidents. What is contested is the classificatation of these incidents into a new genre of anti-Semitism. The comparison to the Holocaust and Holocaust denial is odious, manipulative, contemptable and offensive to many of us whose parents (in my case) suffered in the actual Holocaust. Thank you for the lecture on what I have a right to be offended by but you have no right to tell me not to be offended. Homey 12:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
"I do not remember it being us that brought up the "validity" of comparing the Israeli government to the Nazis"
I don't think such comparisons are valid whether they come from Israeli politicians and right-wing Zionists who opposed Rabin or Sharon or whether it comes from opponents of Israel (I think I've made that quite clear and I'm unaware of anyone here saying such comparisons are valid). Please save your straw dog arguments for your echo chamber where you're much more likely to get away with false claims about what people who disagree with you are saying. Homey 13:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
"Also as you should know, our personal histories are irrelevant so I do not understand why you would bring up the thing about your parents"
Because, as the child of a Holocuast survivor I'm personally offended by frivolous and specious references to the Holocaust. Is that clear enough? It's a shame you can't even acknowledge my right to be offended. Homey 02:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
And yet, SV raised it. Homey 03:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Modern anti-Semitism sounds better. Psychomel @ di(s)cussion 11:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
We could do that but it would be a completely different article "NAS" refers to a specific theory. Though perhaps having an article (or section in Anti-Semitism if there isn't one already) on modern anti-Semitis would help us sort out some of the mixture of streams occuring in the NAS article at present. Homey 13:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree that we may need two separate articles -- one dealing with a perceived motivational shift in anti-Semitism, another dealing with recent occurrences of anti-Semitism.
As I've noted many times in this discussion, it seems inappropriate to equate the two when the "old" anti-Semitism has not disappeared. CJCurrie 01:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Ref 74 and 75 are the same. Could someone fix it when the fighting is over.... Kjaergaard 01:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I've managed to snag a copy of Tanguieff's book, which I'll be reading in the upcoming week. The book itself is actually quite short, though unfortunately I'm busy with non-Wiki activities until Tuesday.
From what I can tell, it looks like another polemic. Perhaps I'll be pleasantly surprised. CJCurrie 01:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Can editors live with the intro in its current state? Homey 12:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not entirely happy with the current version, but I could live with it (for the most part).
I still think there are a number of improvements that should be made, and I certainly think it could be written more clearly. My suggestions, if the introduction is to be rewritten, are as follows:
(i) The introduction should state that the term "NAS" has emerged in response to a real phenomenon.
(ii) The introduction should clarify that there is disagreement as to the nature of the phenomenon.
(iii) The introduction should clarify that there is disagreement as to the extent of the phenomenon -- ie., that some believe it is applied too broadly.
(iv) The introduction should not define the NAS as both A) a contemporary international resurgence of anti-Semitism, and B) a perceived "new type" of anti-Semitism. As I've noted many times, these are not identical concepts -- the current international resurgence is premised in several sources, including "old" anti-Semitism. "B" may be a part of "A", but "B" does not equal "A".
The current introduction covers points (i) and (ii), and at least suggests (iii) -- reinserting the BFO quote would cover all bases. I still have serious concerns about (iv) that I'd like to see addressed. Comments welcome. CJCurrie 18:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't see the need for a personal attack. I replied to your email by stating I was happy with the introduction as it is now. I said that both in an email and on this talk page where I opened the "testing the house" section. Please explain how that answer is "bizarre". I believe I've also made it quite clear that I'm currently on an internship and am working long hours as a result with access to the internet for only about an hour a day. This limits my ability to be involved in any mediation. Had you accepted mediation when I proposed it I would have been able to participate more fully. As it is, if you want me to participate, you'll have to wait until the end of the month. If you can't wait that long then I'm afraid I'll have to say no to mediation for the time being. Homey 04:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I've caused a lot of trouble? Compare the introduction today to its state before I started "causing trouble" and you'll see it's much improved.
You should have agreed to it when I suggested it. At the moment, I have no time for this due to work commitments so if you want me to agree to mediation you'll have to wait until June. Homey 04:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
If one grants the theory of a "New anti-Semitism" (I myself have mixed feelings), there is an obvious parallel between the way that the rhetoric of Antisemetismus replaced the rhetoric of Judenhassen in the 19th century and the way that, in some cases, the rhetoric of "anti-Zionism" may now have supplanted "anti-Semitism", acting as a cover now that anti-Semitism is an equally discredited position. Does anyone know of someone citable who makes this argument? - Jmabel | Talk 04:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
It's also begging the question. Homey 06:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Putting things in that way assumes that the NAS theory is correct and that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitic. [ SV do you think that one can be anti-Zionist without being anti-Semitic? [User:HOTR|Homey]] 14:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC) [sig moved for clarity]
To answer your questions: No, of course not. Yes, Duke is an anti-Semite. Now, please answer my questions. Homey 14:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
The more germane question is is it anti-Semitic to a)be opposed to the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and b)be opposed to the legal, political and economic inequality of Israeli Arabs and Israeli Jews and c) favour a secular state where Israeli Jews, Arabs and others are fully equal politically, economically, legally and socially regardless of religion, ethnicity or culture? Is it anti-Semitic to believe that Israeli Arabs should be able, in practice, to be in cabinet positions up to and including Prime Minister and that the state should belong to all of its citizens, not just those who belong to a particular religion. Is it anti-Semitic to believe that all those who were born in what is now Israel or whose parents or grandparents were born there have the right to be citizens? Is it anti-Semitic to believe that Israeli Arabs should be allowed to buy land owned by the Jewish National Fund, should be allowed to be members of kibbutzim, should be able to live in any community in Israel. Is it anti-Semitic to believe that schools in Israel should be desegregated and that the publically funded system of religious schools be replaced with a single, public, secular and integrated school system. Is it anti-Semitic to describe aspects of the situation of Israel as apartheid? Is it anti-Semitic when leaders of the anti-apartheid struggle such as Desmond Tutu make the comparison? Homey 02:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
"As reputable authorities repeatedly state in our article, criticizing Israel is not antisemitism, but singling it out for demonization uncomparable with other countries - is"
Can one be anti-Zionist, ie opposed to the state of Israel without "demonizing" it? Please note, one who for a binational secular state that is not a "Jewish state" or "Palestinian state" per se can certainly be said to be opposed to the existence of a Jewish state. Is that anti-Semitic? If you want a state where Jews and Palestinians can live together side by side, a state where both are equal and welcome, a state that doesn't identify solely with one group or the other - if that's your position are you an anti-Semite? According to the dogma of New Anti-Semitism, yes, you are. Homey 14:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, you've lost me. Are you speaking here of the Palestinian or Jewish peoples? Homey 14:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept when we remembered Zion.
If, in fact, the Palestinians were the only people ever to be "hereditary refugees", the Babylonian exiles would never have returned and, indeed, Jews would have lost the "right of return" some time in the first century CE or so. Please set aside your double standard Jayjg. Homey 14:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm inclined to suggest we should hold off on mediation for a bit longer. I'm about to look over some of the source material recommended by SV, and would prefer to have the time to digest said material before mediation talks take place.
Please note that I was busy with non-Wiki matters for two days, and was not evading the question. CJCurrie 03:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I've said elsewhere that I would prefer to converse with the proposed mediator directly before agreeing. This isn't meant as a comment on the mediator's abilities; I simply want to be certain that the decision is appopropriate. CJCurrie 04:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I proposed it on April 16th. Since then I have been offered a three week "internship" which may lead to a permanent position. The internship began April 26th and is scheduled to end in two weeks buy may be extended another week depending on the state of the campaign. That means I'm unlikely to have much time until June. Homey 05:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Do you really want me to prove you wrong by posting the diffs?
That's not your decision to make. Mediation has to involve all parties. I am not able to participate until June for the reasons I have given. If you refuse to accomodate this, particularly after repeatedly denying my requests for mediation that were made when I did have time, you'll be "skating on thin ice" if you object to reversions I make because I disagree with a mediated settlement made in my absence. Homey 05:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Slim,
(i) Harping on a perceived 3RR violation is not especially civil, particularly given that the "offense" has not been repeated.
(ii) No one in this discussion is under any obligation to accept your nominee for mediation. Both Homey and I have given reasons for rejecting the offer for the time being (see above) -- however, either one of us would have been in our rights to dismiss the offer on purely procedural grounds.
(iii) There may be another method of approaching this situation without calling for mediation. All of the main contributors in the present discussion are veterans of the page, and our views are a matter of public record. Perhaps it would be useful to bring in neutral contributors with no prior involvement in the discussion, to offer non-binding suggestions for improvement. This might allow for "a fresh perspective" on some increasingly stale discussions, and it would still allow for the possibility of mediation in a month's time. Would this be agreeable to you? CJCurrie 05:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Update:
I have spoken with the proposed mediator, and would agree to accept him in a month's time, subject to certain clarifications to which he seems agreeable.
His letter to me indicated that he would be willing to defer mediation to a time suitable to all parties.
Responses to SV:
That was the point of the mediation: to get a fresh perspective from an experienced editor.
Mediation is a way of getting a fresh perspective from experienced editors; it is not the only way.
You've only said no because Homey did
Please stop impugning motive, Slim: I said no because you were willing to begin mediation without the consent of another contributor and I considered this inappropriate. I suppose you could interpret this as "saying no because Homey did", but it leaves out a rather significant middle step.
you had already agreed in principle.
I agreed in principle to mediation some time ago, and I've just now indicated that I'm willing to accept this proposed mediator in a month's time. I never gave any indication, provisionally or otherwise, that I would accept "mediation by this person, right now".
I strongly urge you not to follow Homey's lead on this, CJC, because he has been very disruptive.
You accused me of similar behaviour not so long ago, Slim. I strongly disagreed with your assessment then, and I disagree with it now as well. Homey has given a credible reason for not being able to participate in discussions; accusing him of "being very disruptive" does not bring the discussion forward.
I'm rapidly arriving at the conclusion that it might be better for all of us to take a step back for a few weeks, and solicit the opinions of others. CJCurrie 20:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
"We've already had this disruption since mid-April,"
SV, you may do better if you ceased describing the edits you disagree with as "disruptions". It's simply the wrong attitude to have for wikipedia. Homey 04:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
So let's see, the first time this page was protected it was not my preferred version. A second time I put up a protection request and then rescinded it, the page was subsequenly protected independently. Sorry, no game playing there. As for mediation, check my edit times and IPs - it is you who are assuming bad faith and making innuendos. Homey 00:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't have time to read the whole thing thoughroughly but in reading the first section I have one serious criticism. The 4th paragraph of the 'nature of' section (starting with Alan Dershowitz) is what I'm talking about. This paragraph tries to make a kind of logic out of comparing criticism specifically of isreal with an example of a jerk from harvard, who definately was anti-semetic, in the 1920s. While there is a certain parallel in the language I think this is a false parallel to be making. Either this paragraph should be removed or it should be indicated that this logic is that of the book by Dershowitz, which I'm not sure if it is the case, I don't know the book.
Overall my very shallow impression of this article is this: There are these kind of political activists who are on the right wing and are trying to promote this term and concept as a way of promoting their views about isreals imperialism. There is a large internet presence of disruptive trolls who attack Indymedi with this kind of thing. Personally I don't agree with their view. However, I think they do have a point. There probably is some new modern leftist kind of anti-semitism out there. The thing is to have a wikipedia article that is honest about that and not just a podium for the trolls political views. The trolls are often not reasonable at all about this and all sorts of crazy disinformation flies every which way as it tends to in IMC when people talk about Isreal/Palestine.
The truth of this all is not black and white. Fortunately wikipedia is good at handling sophisticated contradictions. Yes Isreal is imperialistic and racist there are deceitful arguements to justify it. Yes anti jewish anti semetic racism is rampant and is sometimes manifest by unfairly targeting isreal, by having double standards and not seeing how more people are killed in other conflicts in africa for instance.
So the tools to deal with this wikipedia has are #1 the easy links which mean you can put discussion of the seperate topic, military history of the middle east or jewish customs... put that all away in a different topic somewhere else where it is less convoluted. #2 Present all sides (there are more than two) in their own section so that the thing presents opinion as such.
I think this article is too long, it should just discuss the term. There should be a seperate section or entry for the 'concept' part.
Kudos to all of you wading through this who are better informed than me. Racism is such a load of crap, look where it leads us. Too bad it is so old and permeates so many things. Actually, I would like to point out that my understanding of history is that these things are not as old as they claim to be. 154.20.109.121 09:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)rusl
HOTR posted above that it was our fault that he couldn't take part in the mediation, because he'd first suggested it on April 16, but we were too slow to say yes, and now he's too busy.
However, he last suggested it on April 26: "Let's take this to mediation. If you are confident that your position reflects Wikipedia policy than you have no reason to fear mediation." Homey 22:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC) [6]
I suggested on April 28 that we'd be unlikely to find a formal mediator, so I offered to look for an informal one. I contacted Mel, he agreed, and I e-mailed Homey with that offer on April 30 — within four days of Homey's suggestion. This puts paid to his claim that he would have had time if only we had agreed earlier. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
So you want me to agree to a mediation process that I can't participate in? Homey 00:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
As I've said earlier, I asked for mediation last month but SV refused. I don't see why "The World Does Not Revolve Around You" didn't apply then but applies now, but of course, as this debate is all about double standards anyways I guess it shouldn't be a surprise. If SV saw no hurry to agree to mediation last month I don't see why she suddenly sees an urgent need now. Of course, I guess it's possible she may be suggesting mediation because she knows I'm unavailable but it's not for me to question motives. If she, and you, truly want mediation involving everyone then you should be willing to accomodate by waiting a few weeks. Homey 00:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
SV, the reason I "wouldn't respond properly" is because I've been working 14 hour days, 7 days a week since the end of April. I have told you this several times, including in email responses to you, but you refuse to accept this at face value and are instead making various insinuations. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I suggest before you again suggest that I am not telling the truth regarding my employment situation you a) count up exactly how much time I've spent on wikipedia since the beginning of the month and b) ask someone to run a checkIP on my edits for the last few weeks.
I don't see how you can throw out accusations because you don't get an immediate response (sorry, I don't live on wikipedia right now) and make varioius personal attacks and then expect someone not to respond with annoyance.
Frankly, that you insist on proceeding with mediation after I've told you both privately and publicly (more recently) that I have limited time online for the next few weeks makes one wonder whether you are doing this deliberately. Don't expect people not to question your sincerity when you do nothing but question the sincerity of others. Homey 02:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Homey did not tell me privately he could not engage in mediation. Timeline:
Homey did not tell me privately he could not engage in mediation. Timeline:
Please check exactly how much time I spent online in those days and the IP addresses from which I've been posting. In any case, I sent CJCurrie an email on April 30th which said "With my current job (I'm interning as a [deleted]) I'm only on wiikpedia for a few minutes a day so I don't really have much time to get heavily involved, particularly when it comes to doing research." I had thought I had sent that to you as well but it seems according to my records I did not so I am sorry for that. However, I did send you the CJCurrie email prior to your posting the timeline above so I think it's somewhat disengenuous for you to have posted the timeline given the information I've given you.
I responded to the request for mediation by saying I didn't think it was necessary because the state of the intro as it was is satisfactory and by trying to determine whether 1) SV could live with the intro as it is and b) whether others are. SV has never, as far as I can tell, given me a direct answer about the intro or what she wants changed. The backstory for my response is time-related ie if everyone can live with the intro then we don't need mediation which I don't have time for. Had SV responded to my inquiry regarding whether or not she could live with the status quo sooner then I would have given her a yes or no answer sooner. As it was, she ignored my questions and insisted on a yes or no to mediation. Given my work situation at present I had no option but to say no. Evidently, SV does not take very well to being told no so she's responded with something of a tantrum sending me emails threatening to have my desysopped if I do not agree to mediation and starting a personal campaign against me here. Homey 15:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, to be precise, you sent me an email threatening to take me to the arbcomm if I did not agree to immediate mediation (rather than wait ten days for mediation) and you then sent me a separate email telling me I should be desysopped. Homey 00:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
From: slimvirgin
To: (name deleted)
Date: May 6, 2006 9:38 PM
Subject: Re: New anti-Semitism
Then please bow out of the article. I'm guessing you only became involved because CJCurrie asked you to. Since then all you've done is cause trouble, upset people, and made yourself look bad. You should be desysopped over your behavior on that page. It makes me look back to Armchair-whatever his name was, and makes me regret helping you, because now I wonder whether that was your fault all along.
I know you think the intro has improved because of you, but things would have moved a lot faster without you.
With CJCurrie on board and Mel Etitis mediating, we'll produce a good article. I don't think we will with you involved, because you've created a lot of hostility. Please leave us alone.
E-mail posted above. I leave it for others to judge whether I was, as he alleged, "threatening to have [him] desysopped if [he does] not agree to mediation." The one thing I've learned from this is never to correspond privately with HOTR again. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
There was also another email which began with "I would carefully consider my position in your shoes." then threatened to take me to the arbcomm and detailed my alleged crimes after which you said "Please come to your senses. Either join us in mediation or tell us that you'll leave the page alone from now on."
There was then a second email telling me I "should be desysopped". I think most reasonable people would see that as a threat to agree to immediate mediation or else. Remember that I have already said I'm fine with mediation as long as it beings in a few weeks time. What we see is a temper tantrum from SV, you want it now because you want it now and I'd better agree to what you want now or else. Homey 00:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how your two emails together can be seen as anything but a threat. You open by telling me to "carefully consider my position", talk about the case going to arbcomm, tell me I should agree to mediation, send me a second email saying I "should be desysopped" but no, that's not a threat. Can you even see why I might have felt threatened when I read the emails? Will you at least concede that much? Homey 00:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
To CJCurrie above, SlimVirgin says: "No worries, CJ. Can I tell the mediator that you agree but would prefer that it start in, say, a week's time? SlimVirgin (talk) 04:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)" which would have placed the start time for mediation at May 11. My internship is scheduled to end at the 17th but may be extended to the 24th yet my request for an extra six to thirteen days results in a firestorm of abuse, personal attacks, insinuations that my request is not legitimate, calls for me to back out of the article etc by Jay and SV amongst others and what any reasonable and objective person would see as a threat to take me to the arbcomm and/or have me desysopped if I refuse to agree to immediate mediation. Homey 01:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Two comments:
(i) I will reiterate that the proposed mediator has informed me that he's willing to defer mediation until all parties have agreed on a suitable timeframe. I believe in principle that mediation is required for this article, but I don't see that waiting for three weeks is an insurmountable problem (particularly given that it would likely take this long for an official mediation process to begin).
(ii) I believe that the current participants in this discussion should make use of this three week period to solicit opinions from neutral Wikipedians who have not previously participated in this discussion. My reasons are as follows: a) the discussions on this page have become stale and predictable, and soliciting outside perspectives would be useful, b) tempers are very frayed at present, and a "time out" for all of the main participants might improve the civility of discourse, c) this discussion is already quite long and imposing for new arrivals, and a pause would give other Wikipedians a chance to catch up on the main points of contention.
CJCurrie 21:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
CJCurrie invited me to look over this debate. I thought of several things to say about the article and I thought of several things to say about the above dispute, but then I decided they added little! As far as I can see, there is broad support for the idea of mediation, but a disagreement over the timeframe. In that situation, it would seem sensible to me to actively involve the mediator and let the mediator help resolve the dispute over the details of the process of mediation. CJCurrie suggests that "it would likely take this long for an official mediation process to begin", i.e. the delay Homey requests. If that is so, go forward with a formal request for mediation now, but flag these issues up to the mediator. If the mediation process gets going before Homey is able to devote more time to it, then he and/or CJCurrie can raise that issue with the mediator and the mediator can propose a course of action. If the mediation process takes three or more weeks to get going anyway, then the whole matter is moot. Bondegezou 16:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. I'm not certain that a formal request for mediation is needed at present: SlimVirgin's nominee is someone that most (perhaps all) parties consider trustworthy, and there's no guarantee that someone chosen by the mediation committee would command a similar level of respect. If others want to initiate a formal request for mediation, however, I won't stand in the way. CJCurrie 22:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
My internship is over so I can participate in mediation now if people want to proceed. Homey 16:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Why are Michael Neumanns views on anti-semitism notable? I thought that with his 'history' of comments/associations he would be ineligible. Gilead 12:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
There's a matter that I'd like to clear up before Mel arrives.
When SlimVirgin contacted me concerning Mel's offer to mediate the page, she indicated that the mediator's final decisions should be binding on all participants. I made no comment on this at the time.
I later indicated that I would accept Mel's offer of mediation, subject to a few clarifications. I spoke to Mel about these, and was satisfied with his response.
The only clarification that need be mentioned on this forum concerns the possibility of an appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Although I have high regard for Mel Etitis's abilities to mediate this dispute, I believe that participants in the present discussion would be ill-advised to deny themselves the option of an appeal to higher authorities within Wikipedia. No one contributor, however uniquely situated to hold the trust of all parties, should be given an absolute carte blanche discretion as regards the future of this page.
When I spoke to Mel, I indicated that I would insist on retaining the possibility of an appeal to the ArbComm. He agreed that this would be acceptable.
I should clarify that I am not mentioning this now to poison the mediation process, nor to position myself for a frivolous appeal if the mediator's decision is contrary to my preference. I hope that the mediation will be successful, and I will endeavour to make it so. I will also make every reasonable effort to avoid the necessity of an appeal, even in the mediator's decision results in a page with which I entirely disagree. Nonetheless, I must insist that the path to appeal remain open.
I had planned to mention this earlier, but the previous delay in mediation rendered the matter temporarily irrelevant. CJCurrie 22:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I should have worded my previous message to read "the ArbComm and other higher authorities in Wikipedia", though it's possible that the ArbComm could intervene here on a procedural matter.
In any event, I can affirm that I will (i) make every effort to make the mediation process work, and (ii) not appeal to any higher Wikipedia authority except as an absolute last resort. This is as much as I expect from all other participants. CJCurrie 23:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I can give three responses to the second question:
To the first question, I can only respond as follows: an appeal to the appropriate overseeing body. I emphasize that I do not anticipate the need for any such an appeal in this context. CJCurrie 23:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I suspect that there's no way to make a mediation process enjoyable for anyone, nor to avoid a fair bit of repetition of what's already been said in the dispute. I hope, though, to provide a clean sheet — a way for those who have been involved in the dispute, and who have gradually slipped into acrimony and personal antagonism, to step back and simply discuss the issues again. To that end I've started a mediation page at which I ask those involved each to give a brief neutral account of the dispute (trying to explain it in a way that would be accepted by all sides), and then to say how they think it would be best resolved.
My hope is that this will at least begin to get everyone away from the personal aspects of the dispute and back to what matters — the quality of the article.
If anyone has any objection to this way of doing things, could they leave a comment at my Talk page? -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 13:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I've now down-loaded the mediation page as well as the current article, and I'll be going through all the material off-line (just to reassure people that I haven't just drifted off and left the matter). As soon as I think that I've grasped all the positions, and perhaps have some ideas as to how to start resolving the dispute, I'll come back here and lay out some suggestions (or ask some more questions). -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 16:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Juan Cole, a Michigan historian and pundit, has also written on about this subject. In the context of 2002 when many were concerned about the deterioriate situation in the Occupied Territories, Cole argued that some where using the label of "anti-Semitism" to silence criticisms of the policies of Arial Sharon's government:
From: Juan Cole, The Misuses of Anti-Semitism, George Mason University's History News Network, September 20, 2002.
Removed trolling by banned user Zordrac ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- Malber ( talk • contribs) 15:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC) Sorry but your arguments are completely nonsensical. Also please see WP:AGF.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
The anon user is a previously blocked user, I have banned the user for personal attacks and trolling. Homey 14:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
As soon as the " Anti-Zionism" section "Socialist Anti-Zionism" is restored, there should be some discussion on possible connections between the original socialist anti-Zionism (consider Lenin's attacks on anti-Semitism with the simultaneous ban on the usage of Hebrew and the attack on the Jewish Bund) and the "new anti-Semitism." Darth Sidious 22:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I think you're overreaching. At the very least you're getting into original research. Homey 22:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
But there WAS the section "Socialist Anti-Zionism" in the main "Anti-Zionism" article. At the very least, whoever removed that section should put it back. By the way, that section goes beyond mere Bolshevik anti-Zionism, but also discusses anti-Zionism in relation to the Second International and other Marxists (see Rosa Luxemburg and then-Menshevik Leon Trotsky). Darth Sidious 23:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry that this taking so long. There was an awful lot of material left at the pages I started, as well as the discussion at this Talk page, and the history of the article to go through. (And I have a real life, including undergraduates for whom I'm responsible, and who are sitting their Finals and Prelims this term.)
One thing is clear: there is absolutely no mileage in assigning blame for the situation that was reached. Aside from the fact that it would serve no useful purpose, there are faults on all sides, and totting up numbers and degrees of sins would be a horrible, divisive, and ultimately nugatory task.
What we really need to do is get basic agreement on the shape and content of the article. There is, in fact. considerable agreement among those involved on the general principles, and even on much of the specific content — the problem is partly that people differ over issues of organisation and emphasis, partly that their positions have become more extreme and inflexible over the course of the dispute, and partly some genuine disagreements of a more substantial nature.
I think that everyone agrees that the summary should be completely neutral, introducing the main way that the term "the new anti-Semitism" is used, and indicating briefly the existence and main approaches of those who defend and criticise it. What do editors think of the following attempt at this? It lacks the references, which can be inserted in the appropriate places (I've stuck to material from the summary as it stands at the moment, only presenting it in a more neutral way):
I've tried to keep this neutral between all opinions, and I don't think that it makes any assumptions about the actual instantiation of the concept or the truth of the competing views. If this is acceptable, we could move on to the more controversial sections. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 22:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Mel,
Thank you for your recommendation. I believe I can accept much of what you've written, although some modifications and/or additions may yet be in order.
I'll provide a more detailed response once I've considered the matter further. My initial response, though, is mostly favourable. CJCurrie 02:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I actually think that intro is biased. Its the sort of intro you would write for alien abductions whether you are questioning whether the entire thing is a farce. It questions whether there are any anti-Semetic incidents (we have murders, synagogues being blown up, vandalism, public support for all sorts anti Israeli slogans, an anti-Jewish rape, machine attacks against El Al airlines passengers....) there are unquestionably incidents "is the concept of an international resurgence" has to go. Opponents of the term by in large are apologists or advocates for political terror. The arguments over new anti-semitism is whether this particular types of attacks are justified based on political circumstance that would apply to anyone or whether they are being justified based on who is the target.
That is discussing western anti-zionism without discussing their use of political terror is like discussing the 19th century klan while discounting the existence of lynching. There can disagreement as to whether the Klan was involved in "resistance to occupation" or "terrorism" but there can be no disagreement that they were engaged in violence. I don't see how this is a compromise. It basically accepts the legitimacy of anti-Zionism which begs the question. jbolden1517 Talk 05:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
"It questions whether there are any anti-Semetic incidents (we have murders, synagogues being blown up, vandalism, public support for all sorts anti Israeli slogans, an anti-Jewish rape, machine attacks against El Al airlines passengers....)"
Jbolden, I have trouble reconciling your claim above with this line from what Mel has written (emphasis added):
"The term was used as early as 1974, but entered common usage to refer to a wave of anti-Semitism that escalated, particularly in Western Europe, after the Second Intifada in 2000"
It's clearly stated as a fact that there was "a wave of anti-Semitism that escalated..." I don't see how how this "questions whether there are any anti-Semitic incidents".
I think you are conflating the rise of anti-Semitic inicidents, which is stated as a plain fact, with the intrepretation of these incidents as indicative of anything that is qualitatively "New" - which is a theory. Homey 06:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Why does being "controversial" disqualify it from being mentioned in the lead? And Tariq Ali is a notable figure on the left - notable enough to have his own article, for instance. As has been pointed out earlier his article has appeared in a number of publications, not just Counterpunch. If you don't like Conterpunch being referenced for some reason we can reference another publication the same article has appeared in. Homey 14:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
That would be a start, but I still think there are a lot more neutral sources than Tariq Ali that could be used in its stead.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 16:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
That makes no sense - you want us to quote a "neutral" critic of NAS? If the opening is referencing a *critic* of the term then, by definition, that person isn't going to be neutral just as you aren't going to find any neutral proponents of the term. Read
NPOV, you are confusing the neutrality of the article as a whole with the neutrality of sources. In cases where an idea is constested, as is NAS, NPOV one doesn't need to use all neutral sources, one must just ensure that sources supporting one POV are balanced out with sources supporting a contrary POV.
Homey 16:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
"I never said that we have to use a completly neutral source for everything, I am saying we shoud use a more neutral or unbiased source."
The principle remains the same NPOV does not require us to use "more neutral" or "unbiased" sources to source one side's POV ie NPOV does not mean you can't have POVs in the article, it just means those POVs must be sourced and should be balanced by countervaling POVs. That is the case in Mel's suggested opening. Your desire for a "neutral", "more neutral" or "unbiased" source for the view critical of NAS is not sustained by policy. I understand your desire to water down criticism of a concept you are defending but it is *that* that is not NPOV. Homey 16:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Just to interject: The Tariq Ali article is fine for what it is, but I've long believed we should use a more scholarly text to represent NAS-opposition in the intro. I'd prefer replacing Ali with something from Brian Klug or Norman G. Finkelstein, personally.
(Btw, I finished reading Finkelstein's "Beyond Chutzpah" last week, and I now believe this should be required reading for anyone interested in this debate. The first third of the book is a scathing criticism of modern usage of the term "NAS", with extended criticisms of several titles written by NAS-proponents.) CJCurrie 21:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd be fine substituting a suitable Klug or Finkelstein quotation for Ali though I think Ali's comments belong somewhere in the article. Homey 21:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Suggested Finkelstein quotes (all taken from Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History):
The latest production of Israel's apologists is the "new anti-Semitism". [...] As it happens, the allegation of a new anti-Semitism is neither new nor about anti-Semitism. Thirty years ago, ADL national leaders Arnold Forster and Benjamin R. Epstein published to great fanfare a study entitled The New Anti-Semitism, and less than a decade later ADL national leader Nathan Perlmutter (with his wife, Ruth Ann Perlmutter) put out The Real Anti-Semitism in America, alleging yet again that the United States was awash in a new anti-Semitism. The main purpose behind these periodic, meticulously orchestrated media extravaganzas is not to fight anti-Semitism but rather to exploit the historical suffering of Jews in order to immunize Israel against criticism. Each campaign to combat the "new anti-Semitism" has coincided with renewed international pressures on Israel to withdraw from occupied Arab territories in exchange for recognition from neighbouring Arab states." (pp. 21-22)
How little the "real" anti-Semitism had to do with the genuine article and how much with criticism of Israeli policy could be gleaned from the Perlmutters' preference for the Christian right, which was steeped in anti-Jewish bigotry but "pro"-Israel, as against liberal Protestantism, which was free of anti-Jewish bigotry but "anti"-Israel: [an extended quote follows]." (p. 30)
What's currently called the new anti-Semitism actually incorporates three main components: (1) exaggeration and fabrication, (2) mislabeling legitimate criticism of Israeli policy, and (3) the unjustified yet predictable spillover from criticism of Israel to Jews generally. (p. 66)
CJCurrie 01:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I was slightly worried about retaining the two quotations; specific material like that can be introduced later in the article. How about this, then?
-- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 22:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
As before, I'm inclined to accept this on principle while allowing for some further modifications/additions. CJCurrie 23:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll take it. Because its shorter my objections go away and can be explored in the main article. jbolden1517 Talk 23:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the article makes for a better read with quotations in the lead. If individuals are objecting to Ali could we find a quotation from Klug or Finkelstein? Homey 23:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I'll go with the second version then. I'd like the quotations (on both sides) worked into the body of the article though. Homey 18:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
New anti-Semitism is the concept of an international resurgence of anti-Semitic incidents and attacks on Jewish symbols and institutions, as well as the acceptance of anti-Semitic beliefs and their expression in public discourse, which is held to be associated with certain left-wing political views. The adjective "new" is used to distinguish this form of anti-Semitism from the older, traditionally right-wing form. The term was used as early as 1974, but entered common usage to refer to a wave of anti-Semitism that escalated, particularly in Western Europe, after the Second Intifada in 2000, the failure of the Oslo accords, and the September 11, 2001 attacks.
Denis Diderot makes some good points; in particular, this article is about a phenomenon, not a concept. Jayjg (talk) 22:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
That's not quite what M. Diderot said. Notwithstanding that, I agree that he has raised some valid points, largely relating to the divergent usages of the term.
In the most general sense, "new anti-Semitism" has the same meaning as "contemporary anti-Semitism" (referring to any and all recent manifestations of anti-Semitism). In a more specific sense, however, the term has been used since 1974 (and especially since 2001) to identify modern occurrences of anti-Semitism as emanating from a particular theoretical framework.
The general meaning refers to a phenomenon. The specific meaning is theoretical and has been the subject of considerable debate; I would identify it as a "theory", but I'll settle for "concept" as a compromise term.
For all intents and purposes, the main body of this article is about the specific meaning. Accordingly, I believe that Mel's suggested introduction is appropriate to the information that follows ... although it may be necessary to add more information in order to clarify alternate meanings and usages.
Prior to 6 March 2006, the article's introduction distinguished between the general and specific meanings of the term. It may be useful to restore some of the information which was removed on that and other occasions. CJCurrie 01:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
By the way, would I be correct in assuming that Mel chose the word "concept" as a compromise between "fact" and "theory", endorsing neither but allowing for the possibility of each? CJCurrie 02:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Do Moshe, Humus and Jay support renaming this article New anti-Semitism (epithet)? Homey 06:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Homey, if you start this up again, I will take you to the arbcom and ask that they ban you from editing this article, and that they consider your abuse of your admin tools. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Which admin tools have I abused? The article isn't protected. All I've done is add a few qualifiers. Homey 20:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
SV, keep Wikipedia:Civility in mind. You should not blow up over changing "said" to "claimed", it's ridiculous. Homey 20:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Good editors don't throw temper tantrums over a minor editing dispute. Homey 22:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Because of your AWOL you never answered any of the questions put to you nor any of the responses to your statement.
Copied from the mediation page:
The "New anti-Semitism" article had a significantly different introduction on 16 June 2005. This prior version distinguished the general phenomenon of "new anti-Semitism" from the specific theory of "New anti-Semitism", and noted the latter's controversial linkage of anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism.
Significant changes followed. I would draw the attention of readers to an edit from 09:01, 18 June 2005, which (i) seems to undermine the distinction between "new" and "New" anti-Semitism, and (ii) removes the phrase "This view presupposes a connection between the New anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism". Another editor later attempted to restore the distinction between "new" and "New", at which time the first editor reverted the page back to her version.
The introduction was then altered again on 25 December 2005 by an editor with a very limited posting history. This edit defines "NAS" more narrowly, though also noting that the term may be used in different ways to mean different things.
A subsequent edit on 3 January 2006 marks another significant change, including the first insertion of the phrase, "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." This is stated as a matter of fact, although the previous sentence indicates that this "new form" is only "alleged".
This edit from 5 March 2006 removes all reference to the general meaning of the term, and in so doing removes the distinction between "new" and "New" anti-Semitism. It also elevates the "NAS" from "a theory" to "a fact".
I am not certain that any of these changes were for the better -- the intro of 16 June 2005 seems far more lucid and balanced than that of 10 April 2006. I will also observe that the edit summaries (apart from that of 25 December) give little indication of the definitional changes. CJCurrie 22:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Would you care to comment on these changes? CJCurrie 22:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Since your back, maybe you can respond to CJCurrie's question? Homey 23:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
And SV, are you seriously claiming that you haven't been POV pushing in this article since you joined it? Complete from elevating NAS from a theory to a fact because that is your dearly held POV? You have absolutely no objectivity in this article or any article to do with Israel or Zionism. If anyone should recuse themselves, it's you. Homey 23:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind, I'm not going to respond to baiting. Homey 23:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
No. I'm tired of this. I just think you lack perspective on certain issues and that it would help if you developed a tendency for self-criticism. Homey 23:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
And I think you need to take some responsibility for your own role in this conflict. You are not NPOV on this issue yet you behave as if you are and as if your POV is fact while everyone else should be dismissed. A good editor knows her biases, admits them and tries to compensate for them. Homey 23:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to recuse myself from this article for three months. You should consider recusing yourself as well and leaving it to other editors. Homey 23:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
At the very least, you should recuse yourself from Israeli apartheid where you and Jay have played the precise same role you accuse me of playing here. Homey 23:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)