Talk:International Academic Friends of Israel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Unrelated NAS Claim - belongs in a separate article

It is inappropriate to insert into this article a connection between the Israel academic boycotts and New Anti-Semitism if the individuals running this group are not making that claim. This ground does not specifically talk about NAS thus to bring this up in this article is very strange. If there are claims of NAS in relation to the Israeli academic boycott then we should make those claims in the appropriate article -- I would suggest that be in Israeli academic boycott or something similar. I notice there is a section in NAS that covers this. I suggest that we split it out and cover it in a neutral area but link to all appropriate articles. The NAS mention can be shortened a bit to focus more on just the NAS relevant aspects. --Deodar 16:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I have provided sources that show the opponents have called it either contemporary anti-Semitism or new anti-Semitism, so please stop calling it OR. Please provide a source showing it was founded by Marks. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I take it you didn't read the article I linked to in Jewish Week. I'm merely trying to report the organization as it describes itself, not the way you are interpreting it as. It is sort of strange that you are insistent to link it to NAS without evidence but you can't let me put in the real founder for which there is evidence. --Deodar 19:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The individuals running this group are participating in international conferences on antisemitism based on the understanding that these boycotts are antisemitic, and the President has been thanked in this regard for his efforts to combat "the threat of anti-Semitism [which] has returned with such dreadful force around the globe requiring our urgent, concentrated and coordinated response."[1]. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no doubt with regards to its relationship to anti-Semitism. But there is a difference between anti-Semitism and New anti-Semitism. SlimVirgin, I have noticed, tends to see everything as "New anti-Ssmitism" whether individuals make reference to it or not, and given that it is a specific thing that is distinct (although obviously related to) from anti-Semitism I strongly believe it is OR. SlimVirgin in this instance cites an article about the boycott that does not mention of IAFI in order to link it to NAS -- this is OR linkage. It is not appropriate in this article. So far the IAFI has in the sources provided made no reference to NAS. --Deodar 19:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The boycotts are widely regarded as an example of new anti-Semitism, which I have given you a ref for, and this organization has been set up to fight the boycotts, and has discussed anti-Semitism. It's verging on a WP:POINT to insist that I find a ref from this group that uses those specific words. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

You've just violated 3RR. Please take the opportunity to revert yourself. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Slim, you have reverted me 3 times and if you include Jayjg I have been reverted 4 times. Your three reverts of the "American" designation of the organization (it is a US-registerd non-profit - under IRS code 501(c)3, which you can check on its website materials) are here: [2], [3], [4]. Can you deal with me on the content of the dispute rather that playing the revert game? I have added real information too in these edits of mine, such as naming the founder of the organization. Thx. --Deodar 19:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Ben, the New anti-Semitism article makes it quite clear that these boycotts are viewed by scholars as a component of the New anti-Semitism. As the New anti-Semitism article is the place where these boycotts are discussed in the framework of anti-Semitism (not, the [Anti-Semitism]] article), it's hard to understand why you object to this clear and obvious fact and linkage, which would only assist the reader in understanding the arguments more fully. Moreover, the sources themselves describe the organization as "worldwide", not American, so I'm not sure why you insist it is American. Also, as Slim has said, you've violated 3RR, so please revert yourself. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I am pushing for a proper article that covers the boycotts, the motivations behind, the controvery and the linkage to NAS. I have been reverted by you and SlimVirgin a total of 4 times. I have added real content in my edits -- I am not playing a revert game. I have also tried to engage people on the talk page -- I took the initiative here, thus to characterize this as a revert violation by me is trying to take me out on a technicality. --Deodar 19:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It's no technicality. You keep reverting and it's disruptive. Please revert yourself to avoid a report. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I view it as disputive to revert my edits blindly. You accuse me of being disruptive, but you didn't even read the source I gave for the founder -- you just assumed I made it up without checking and removed it -- it was accurate and relevant information. I do not believe I blindly reverted 4 times. --Deodar 19:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

This article is about IAFI, not a lengthy article about the boycotts. 3RR is quite simple. Your removal of material is incorrect, as explained at length here, and your doing so 4 times is a violation of policy. Again, please revert yourself. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned earlier, you and SlimVirgin have together reverted my accurate addition of American to the non-profit designation four times. I am puzzled as to how Jayjg noticed this article though, it is a new article and there is no talk on either user talk pages relevant to this article? Can you clarify? Thanks. --Deodar 19:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

We're trying to edit this article, whereas you appear to be here to cause a problem. If the group is American, find a source that says that. But regardless of the content issue, you're not allowed to revert four times, and you have done so. Please revert yourself. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I take it you are adamant about not reversing your WP:3RR violation? P.S. In case you weren't aware, not only does Wikipedia have a Recent changes list, but every Wikipeda contributor has a contributions list that is publicly available for viewing. For example, here's yours. I hope that's helpful. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)