Talk:Antisemitism/Archive 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Contents 1 Dispute resolution 2 Concession 3 Anti-Zionism 4 Offensive links

Dispute resolution

Simonides, I've been investigating various resolution dispute mechanisms, which up until now I had not fully understood. I probably still do not understand them fully; nevertheless, do you feel you can eventually resolve your issues with the other contributors to this page, or should we request mediation? Jayjg 21:48, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Can I request you two seek mediation? It would certainly beat you hurling abuse at each other on this page - David Gerard 22:38, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

David, no objection to dispute resolution here, but I really do not see how that will help matters when what Wikipedia really needs is an Idiot Filter. -- Simonides 23:07, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

PS if the above sections are done with I recommend they be archived, each on separate pages, as they are around or over 30 KB each; I archived the past two/three pages.

David, what is the best way of getting mediation? Jayjg 20:45, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Concession

This article has just been unprotected and to prevent another edit war I have made a radical edit which I hope we can simply leave alone, based on some reasons and conditions I hope we can all agree on:

1) Since most of the ruckus here is focused on the section "Modern Anti-Semitism", and I was responsible for moving the section back here from its separate article page, I have moved it back to its own article, including the majority of links which focus on alleged anti-Semitism in the modern era.

2) As Danny has pointed out, this article lacks adequate context or historical depth; there is already a long section on 20th century anti-Semitism which prevents redundancy, and perhaps makes up for the absence of "Modern anti-Semitism". In separating the two articles some of us can perhaps focus on the historical deficiency and hope to gradually improve this article to a high standard. The links and the bibliography too will, I hope, alter in emphasis from recent polemical studies to historical studies that offer a good overview or introduction to the subject as a whole.

3) This is a key point: I will avoid the Modern_anti-Semitism article and allow edits to go unchallenged, etc., so long as the "neutrality" tag is not removed. In return I ask that my most energetic critics not interfere with this article, on which the "neutrality" tag will also be retained. Since I would like this article to focus almost exclusively on the tradition of anti-Semitism rather than modern manifestations, I don't believe there will be much reason for contention, but if there is, please bring it to the Talk page and your objections will be given due consideration, although I offer no guarantees; similarly I will bring any serious objections to the Talk page at Modern_anti-Semitism without making edits and will permit its main contributors the final editorial decision.

I realise this is a tough call but without it we're at an impasse and this is probably the best short-term solution. -- Simonides 01:11, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Simonides, you may not claim ownership of this article. Nor may you continue to use this article to insist on pro-Arab and pro-Christian apologetics. Further, you must stop referring to all edits as vandalism. No vandalism has occured, not the slightest. The content of this article must be about the topic, anti-Semitism; this is not an appropriat location for you to inist on apologetics for any religion's activities. RK 12:06, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)

Is the title "Modern anti-Semitism" a good one? Wouldn't something like "anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism" make more sense? Jayjg 17:54, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. Many people see a connection between some forms of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, and this matter must be included in this article. Slrubenstein

It is impossible to work with people who adopt such a juvenile approach. Slrubenstein, you don't seem to have the faintest idea of what is going on, yet turn up from time to time to attack a strawman; as I have said repeatedly there is no problem with inclusion of a summary of the view you stated, but I will not have sections that duplicate others in the article, filled with obviously partisan quotes based on dubious 'facts', that do more than simply represent a POV. As for RK, your edits have simply been reverted. Not that all were bad. But please don't delete material that has long been in the article without bringing your reasons here first; next, most of your edits will gladly be accepted, but again, please bring them here so we can discuss them first. To keep up my end of the bargain, I haven't touched the modern anti-Semitism article except to move stuff there, but it seems I can't rely on RK to return the favour.

In effect I am asking that we behave as if the article has been protected and only make changes as and when necessary after agreement. This is, in my opinion, a method that works between mature and reasonable people. I do not seem to be talking to such people so far, but I hope you can prove that wrong. -- Simonides 17:15, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Simonides, I understand quite well what is going on. I have seen your abusive language and your assertions that you will remove points of view you do not approve of, and I have seen you cut most material on different views of anti-semitism and anti-zionism. What you call a summary, from what I can tell, is simply the statement "some people think some forms of anti-zionism are anti-semitism." The article needs to have more information than that: who holds such claims, and why, for example. Slrubenstein

Your version is yet another distortion of the events and you have just demoted yourself to another member of the "pack". Thank you for making your position clear. As for my point, I still do not see any consensus on creating and following a protocol. Jayjg has followed RK's lead in making edits at will. Indeed this is a privilege we all have at Wiki but the suggestion of a protocol is to make collective editing on this particularly contentious article smoother. Until we can reach a decision I plan to revert edits. -- Simonides 18:23, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The section I edited was not the controversial anti-Zionism / anti-Semitism section, which I understood to be the area in contention. I do not agree that changes in all areas need be discussed first, but rather the only the section that is in dispute should be discussed first. It is hard to understand how someone can make a huge series of edits to the article, and then declare "all future edits must be discussed with me first", and portray others as recalcitrant for not doing so. I have accepted the idea that the anti-Zionism section changes should be discussed first, but see no need to follow this protocol for the other, less controversial sections. Until we reach some consensus on this, I plan to make resanable edits other sections, and encourage others to do the same where appropriate. Jayjg 19:14, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The entire article is open to NPOV violation, so any changes to any part of the article must be discussed first. Until that time reverts will continue to be made. -- Simonides 19:19, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You yourself have admitted that other changes were valid and useful. This standing on a "point of law" that you have invented is ridiculous. Changes will continue to be made, unless you have specific objections to the changes in question. Jayjg 19:28, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The point is to agree on a protocol so we can co-operate easily. Given the history of this page it is a far from ridiculous option, and far better than wasting time on daily edit wars. -- Simonides 19:41, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I haven't seen any attempt to gain agreement on a protocol; rather, you have made huge arbitrary changes to the article, and then attempted to enforce your preferred protocol on everyone else. I personally have proposed a more reasonable protocol, prior agreement in Talk: required on the one controversial section, and normal Wikipedia protocol for the rest. However, you still insist on arbitrarily reverting any changes to the article that you don't agree with, or that don't meet your imposed protocol, regardless of their value. Jayjg 14:52, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That's right, there has been no attempt at agreement from any of you that have replied. My changes were not "abitrary" because I have detailed the reasons behind them here; in fact every one of my edits has been defensible and defended, which has not been the case with screeching, rampant vandals like RK and more moderate but still partisan editors like yourself. Your suggestion still leaves open too much room for edit wars, which is what I wish to minimize - and since the article is now protected, I believe we could use the opportunity to review any contributions anyone wants to make to the article. Please post them. We can review them and agree on wording together. As for reverts, again, I am simply enforcing the need for respect - I will respect your judgement on a companion article if you respect mine. If that is not possible, there will be little or no agreement in future. -- Simonides 20:37, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Now that the topic has been shoved off into a secondary article which is currently not even linked to, I'm sure you do "respect" my judgement on it. It's all very convenient for you to take control of the main article, excise all the material you don't like, and say "This is mine, you go play with that other stuff," but pretending that it is reasonable won't wash. As for "respect", you have shown me quite the opposite, from your first comments to me to your more recent ones. The fact that one of your very first comments to me described me as "impudent" indicates your beliefs about the nature of your status vis a vis my own. If you were interested in respect, you would have taken my many suggestions and urgings that you moderate your insults and invective. It is not reasonable for you to expect that you can viciously denigrate those who disagree with you in post after post, and then suddenly expect them to trust and "respect" you. Jayjg 21:11, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I did not create the "secondary article", so the material was not "shoved off" - it was restored. As explained previously - proving you either don't follow or habitually distort events - I moved it in here to prevent it from becoming slop; then moved it back since we could not agree on it (it has now returned to being slop.) It is true that I haven't shown you much respect so far, because I find your edits and your reasoning execrable, but I optimistically believe we can put that aside when making judgements on the article. -- Simonides 22:24, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sigh. Here's another classic example of your technique. I didn't accuse you of creating the secondary article, I stated that you excised material from this article and shoved it off into secondary article. The fact that you may have take other material from the secondary article, put it in here, and then later put it back into the other article does not impinge in any way on the truthfullness of my statements. The material that I added to this article was excised by you and shoved off into a secondary article, soon after I started working on trying to clean up the topic. You seem to want to lump me in with other editors (you've certainly done it often enough), but I am just me, myself, no-one else. As for the rest, you still can't seem to resist the steady stream of ad hominems and insults; rest assured, until you learn how to conduct yourself civilly, there will be no way of "put[ting] that aside when making judgements on the article." In fact, I will revert any changes you make as a matter of policy, just as you do to me and the other editors working here. If you want to work on a more civil basis, let me know; I've certainly been encouraging you to. Jayjg 15:59, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Anti-Zionism

A modest proposal to start:

Current wording:

Anti-Zionism is a term that has been used to describe several very different political and religious points of view, both historically and in current debates. All these points of view have in common some form of opposition to Zionism, but their diversity of motivation and expression is so great that "anti-Zionism" cannot be seen as a single phenomenon.

Proposed wording:

Anti-Zionism is a term that has been used to describe several very different political and religious points of view, both historically and in current debates, all expressing some form of opposition to Zionism. Many commentators have seen links between some forms of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, or see some forms of anti-Zionism as anti-Semitic. See etc.

Also, the links should actually work.

Jayjg 17:53, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

We can fix the links - it's a minor problem. Re: wording, here is a tentative draft

Anti-Zionism is a term that has been used to describe several very different political and religious points of view, both historically and in current debates. All these points of view have in common some form of opposition to Zionism, but their diversity of motivation and expression is so great that "anti-Zionism" cannot be seen as a single phenomenon. A large variety of commentators - politicians, journalists, academics and others - frequently attribute criticism of Israeli military actions and its occupation of disputed areas to anti-Zionism. In turn, the majority of these commentators also claim that most of these manifestations of anti-Zionism are caused by anti-Semitism. They believe Israel receives a disproportionate degree of censure. Since anti-Zionism is itself problematic to define, critics of such a view believe that associating criticism with anti-Zionism, or anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, is intended to stifle debate by colouring almost any criticism as anti-Zionist, deflect attention from valid criticism, and taint anyone opposed to the above Israeli actions and policies. They point to the absurdity of some of these claims of anti-Semitism, which have been directed at Jews, Israelis, and other people with close ties to Jewish people and culture or to Israel, who are merely in disagreement.

The reason this does not need to be long (repeating myself) is that the article already spends a lot of time on the contemporary era and there are already main articles linked which explore the same issues. -- Simonides 18:36, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I find Simonides' version wordy and long -- and unnecessarily complicated because it goes back and forth from charge to countercharge. Also, it is vague as to who it is talking about. I propose a much simpler structure. There is no need to charachterize "anti-zionism," especially if it is so heterogeneous, since this is not an article on zionism or antizionism -- I think it is enough to have links to articles on zionism, anti-Zionism, Israel-Palestinian conflict, etc. What is necessary is a description of what kinds of criticisms have been characterized as anti-Semitic. I don't know of anyone who has said that ANY form of criticism is anti-Semitic, but if someone or better, some organization has said so, we can certainly metnion that. Otherwise, we should try to sum up the particular kinds of criticisms that have been labeled as "anti-Semitic. By the way, my sense is that it is not just the kind of criticism that leads to questions of anti-Semitism, but the circumstances and also assumptions about the motives. In any event, we just need s simple description that sums up these factors. In short, the first two sentences of Simonides proposal could be cut as they don't have to do with anti-Semitism, and the last two sentences can go as they are argumentative. What we do need instead is explanation of what kinds of criticisms of Israel, or Zionism, specifically, have been characterized as anti-Semitic and why. Slrubenstein

Of course you want the first two and last two sentences to go - that would conveniently expel context and reinforce your POV. My version is too wordy and vague, but 1) this issue doesn't even belong in the article; 2) if it got any more specific, it would get even longer. Why don't you write a draft too, so we can look at it? -- Simonides 19:14, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think this is much less wordy, to the point, and NPOV:

Anti-Zionism is a term that has been used to describe several very different political and religious points of view (both historically and in current debates) all expressing some form of opposition to Zionism. A large variety of commentators - politicians, journalists, academics and others - believe that criticisms of Israel and Zionism are often disproportionate in degree and unique in kind, and attribute this to anti-Semitism. In turn, critics of this view believe that associating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism is intended to stifle debate, deflect attention from valid criticism, and taint anyone opposed to Israeli actions and policies. See etc. Jayjg 19:27, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That is a good draft. It could be explained a little further but I am fine with including that in the relevant section, and adding the link to the main article. -- Simonides 19:43, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The above version is certainly tighter. As for POV -- I have none, what is important is the content of this article. It is an article on anti-Semitism so anti-Semitism should lead, not anti-Zionism (UNLESS we are saying that anti-zionism is a unified concept and all anti-zionism is anti-Semetic. I don't know of anyone who claims this, so I see no point in making "anti-Zionism" the focus. We still need info on who believes these criticisms of zionism are anti-semetic, and why. Slrubenstein

As Steve Rubenstein has noted, Simonides is rude and abusive, and is deleting large chunks of information to only replace them with his own personal opinions. Simonides further has a habit of inserting Muslim and Christian apologetics, and of repeatedly trying to turn this into an article on "Why Jews don't have it as bad as Muslims." He keeps reverting everyone else's additions and edits; argues with every contributor, and has assumed total ownership of this article. Jayjg, Slr and others, we need to take Simonides to arbitration, or perhaps let him know that further abuse from him will be grounds for a ban. RK 20:12, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)

Simonides, there still seems to be no link to the Modern Anti-Semitism page you created, even after you inserted the changes; I thought you said you could fix the links as they were a "minor problem". Jayjg 14:47, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It still is a minor problem. The article was protected right after your draft was added and before it could be reviewed. -- Simonides 20:39, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Offensive links

I do not think that wikipedia should link to grossly offensive pages, not even for reasons of "documenting". Someone added a link "Fuckfrance.com" to Anti-French sentiment in the United States. Such a title is totally unacceptable for a website, and we should not advertise such things under any condition. What would you say if we listed crap like FuckUSA.org or FuckIsrael.com? At both George W. Bush and John Kerry even all "critical" links were deleted. I do not see why there should not be a limit of indecency for link lists of other controversial articles as well. What do others think? I ask the same question at Talk:anti-American sentiment - and a similar one at pedophilia-related "Childlover". Get-back-world-respect 20:42, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I totally agree. The only criticism that we should have, or link to, is encyclopedia scholarly criticism. And I am using the word criticism in it academic sense of the word, which has nothing to do with disparagement. Rather, criticism in it academic sense means to give a topic or a view a critical reading and analysis. RK 21:25, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. This amounts to censorship. If such a link adds something to the article put it in. pir 22:09, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That is exactly the point, disparagement does not add anything to articles. Get-back-world-respect 23:01, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)