Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-04-16 New anti-Semitism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Mediation Case: 2006-04-16 New anti-Semitism 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Mediator response 1.3 Evidence 1.4 Compromise offers 1.5 Comments by others 1.6 Discussion

[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-04-16 New anti-Semitism

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: TreveX^talk 17:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

New anti-Semitism

Who's involved?

The main protagonists are:

• User:TreveX
• User:CJCurrie
• User:Pecher
• User:SlimVirgin
• User:HOTR

Other commentators on talk page:

• User:Rama
• User:Timothy_Usher
• User:Jayig
• User:Viriditas
• User:MPerel
• User:Moshe_Constantine_Hassan_Al-Silverburg

What's going on?

• Page now locked due to edit warring.
• One party of editors (mainly SlimVirgin, Pecher) seem to be happy with a slightly narrower definition of what new anti-Semitism (NAS) is. See this version of the article [1]
• The other party (mainly TreveX, CJCurrie, Homey) are concerned that what they see as valid qualifications and alternative perspectives on what the new anti-semitism is are being excluded. They would be more happy with something like this [2] or this [3].
• Lots of arguing over sources. One party puts forward what they see as well-sourced edits, other party then objects to the source, saying it's not relevant or unreliable.

What would you like to change about that?

Build consensus on what the introduction should be, with outside help and oversight. End result should be an introduction which everyone can live with, even if it wasn't what they would have written themselves.

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

Not applicable. No requirement to work discreetly.

Would you be willing to be a mediator yourself, and accept a mediation assignment in a different case?

Far too busy this month, but maybe in future.

[edit] Mediator response

Hello. I have no stake in the article, no position on the subject and have not been involved in editing this article. Unless there are objections, I will study the citations and propose one (or two) alternate introductions that might concilliate your positions. Coren 03:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Allright; here are my findings to date. I will be using those to compose an alternate introduction within the next couple of hours:

• The term new anti-Semitism has consistent meaning, and is used by opponents and proponents to designate a phenomenon having those characteristics:
  • There is a resurgence or increase of anti-Semitic behavior; and
  • That increase is (mostly) caused by anti-Zionist sentiment originating from the Left-wing ideologies (distinguishing it from anti-Semitism that has been usually attributed to Right-wing and faschist ideologies),
• Opponents of the term agree on the meaning of the term, but object to its use because they:
  • Dispute the significance or existence of the resurgence of anti-Semitic behavior;
  • Dispute the relevance of the distinction;
  • Reject the association between Left-wing ideologies and anti-Zionism; or
  • Object to the term including anti-Zionism and criticism directed at Israel as forms of anti-Semitism at all.

Given that the term is ideologically loaded, but that its meaning appears uncontested, I think it's important that the first paragraph describe the meaning unambiguously. I also beleive that it's important that the introduction states that the concepts subsumed by the term are disputed.

It's important to remember that ideological concepts are inherently POV, but that describing the concepts accurately does not imply endorsing them. Maintaining NPOV in an article dedicated to an ideological concept is achieved not by "watering down" the concept to "acceptable" levels, but by expanding on the existence and nature of the objections and disputes over the concept.

Coren 12:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I very much agree to the outcomes of your findings. But I'd say, that the most disputed point is the last point of your "Opponents list". The question is not only if anti-Zionism and/or criticism is anti-Semitism, but in which case and how. The whole debate is actually quite similar to the Islamophobia#Runnymede_Trust definition, where the Runnymede Trust tried to find a "decision guidance" for deciding, what is racist Islamophobia and what is fair critizism. A similar concept is the "3D" test or the EUMC list. Raphael1 12:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

---

• Note: The following exchange was copied verbatim from my talk page so that others interrested in the case can be made aware of it. Coren 23:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I wonder why you completely ignore my comments?

--Denis Diderot 13:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[response interleaved] Coren 23:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Let me just very briefly explain why I asked.

In this long comment I wrote: "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'."

On the case page, you wrote: "The term new anti-Semitism has consistent meaning"

I don't think I can agree with you after my review of the literature. While there are subtle differences amongst users of the term, those are best left to explain in the article proper. Your point about the inclusiveness or not of "old anti-Semitism" is well taken, and I'll try to work it in the introduction. Mind you, I still think that's a comparatively minor point of difference since the users who use the inclusive form nonetheless recognize the fundamental (Left-based, ideological) concept (otherwise they wouldn't be using new anti-Semitism at all).

In the same comment I wrote that "a concept can't be controversial as such. Only some claim made _about_ the concept can be controversial."

(Do opponents object to this use: "there is no such thing as a new anti-Semitism" ?)

You stated that "Opponents of the term agree on the meaning of the term, but object to its use".

In order to claim (meaningfully) that there is no such thing as X, you have to agree on what X means in the first place. I can understand that "Floob" means "seven-legged horse" without agreeing that horses can have seven legs. Likewise, opponents of "new anti-Semitism" (that I've read) dispute its nature or existence (of the concept) but nonetheless understand what is meant by the term.

Perhaps "[...] but object to its use [...]" is poorly phrased. I'm wrestling with the actual text of the introduction to convey what I meant perhaps in a better way.

(I also wrote something similar in this comment on the case page)

So perhaps you misunderstood my comments or perhaps I've misunderstood your findings. In any case, it was a bit strange to be contradicted without any argument.

--Denis Diderot 20:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

No. Simply put, I think your comments bring valuable information but that the place to expand on those topics is in the main article rather than the introduction. Coren 23:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

@Denis, please let me note, that I don't trust the books you've read. Denying the existence of new anti-Semitism altogether seems rather ignorant to me. IMHO racism has no bounderies neither religious nor political. Raphael1 23:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Please, I must insist on all participants remaining polite and to refrain from ad hominem attacks. Coren 23:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, I didn't want to attack anyone personally. I rather commented on that books resp. its authors. Raphael1 00:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Here is my first suggested draft. Note that I have not included references or wikilinks in this draft for clarity and formatting purposes:

The term new anti-Semitism has been put forth to designate a distinct
form of anti-Semitism, based on Left-wing ideologies and anti-Zionism, that
would explain a resurgence of anti-Semitic behavior and belief, and
tolerance of their expression in public discourse.  The term is used by
some speakers to be inclusive of other anti-Semitic behavior (usually
attributed to Right-wing, or fashist ideology), and by others to be
exclusive and distinct from other forms of anti-Semitism.

There is considerable opposition to some of the assumptions behind the term,
however.  Opponents dispute the nature or significance of the claimed
resurgence of anti-Semitism, or that Left-wing ideology is a significant
new element.  Particular opposition has been made to the conflation of
anti-Zionist ideologies and opposition to Israeli policies to anti-Semitism.

How does that read to you? Remember that details of both the term and its opposition is meant to be expanded upon in the article body, the introduction must serve only two purposes:

• Explain what the term is expected to mean to most speakers; and
• that the concepts behind the term are contested.

Please remember that describing what a term means does not imply acceptance of the concepts behind it. There is no need to write defensively or euphemistically around the definition as long as the entire introduction makes it clear that there is dispute about the factual accuracy behind the concept.

None of the sources I have read dispute what new anti-Semitism means (inclusively or exclusively), but have (sometimes very strong) opinions on whether it exists at all, or it describes reality.

There is also significant contreversy over alleged motives behind the creation and use of the term, but those are best discussed in the body rather than the introduction. Coren 00:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Given that one of the editors named as a party is actively opposed to attempts at informal mediation, I will recuse myself from this case. My suggested introduction, of course, stands and may be used as desired. Best of luck to all, and please remember that we are all trying to build and encyclopedia. Coren 04:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence

• TreveX has collected a list of sources to back up suggested edits, additions and qualifications (in his opinion).

[edit] Compromise offers

[edit] Comments by others

I've just found that mediation page and would like to offer another version of the intro. But before I do so, I'd like to introduce myself, because I think, that this controversial topic needs honesty and openness in the discussion. I am Austrian, which means that the anti-Semitism of my fellow citizens culminated in the Holocaust. Still I don't think it's right to hold me liable for my kin, since I have been born in the early 70s. As an Austrian it is very difficult for me to have a NPOV on that issue, since the Holocaust left hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees and made Zionism almost universally accepted among Jews. Nevertheless I think, that a NPOV on the Israel-Palestine conflict is very important and essential to a solution one day.

Before I try to write my version of the intro, I'd like to explain the difference between valid criticism (on politics, religious teachings, ...) and racism (ethnical, religious, national, ...). Racism means hostility toward a group of people ignoring the individual differences of their members, whereas valid critique is supposed to be helpful.

If the critic comes from outside of an involved group, it becomes difficult to differentiate between those two. Sometimes racists use valid critique to hide their racism. Sometimes racism emerges from initially valid critique, which doesn't bring the expected change.

After reading the three versions, I think, that they aren't that different at all. Here's my version, where I tried to focus on common important points, which is why it's a bit short.

Raphael1 20:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the lead should be short and to the point. But many notable persons include right-wing anti-Semitism (neo-Fascism, neo-Nazism, right-wing Arabic anti-Semitism etc) in their concepts. Therefore your first paragraph is incorrect. The second paragraph is similarly flawed since it takes "the concept" for granted, when in fact there are several different concepts. The controversy must be presented more along these lines. (That is, the intro in the old version was more accurate, but obviously still in need of improvement.)

--Denis Diderot 07:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It is difficult to believe, that new anti-Semitism denotes all contemporary forms of anti-Semitism, because it would IMHO make the whole term/article superfluous. I'd then rather suggest a rename to "Contemporary forms of anti-Semitism" or "Anti-Semitism in the 21st century" Raphael1 23:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

This is one of the main sources of confusion. Some people regard the new anti-Semitism as very different and distinct from the "old anti-Semitism" (dichotomy), and some people see it as merely the latest variation (no dichotomy). The word "new" means simply "not present before". "Not present" may be understood in a universal sense (not present anywhere anytime) or in a more limited sense (not present during some time interval, not present in this location/relationship).

--Denis Diderot 09:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Since "new" cannot mean "not present before anywhere anytime", I'd say it means "not present before in the left-wing society". Which isn't exactly "true" either, because there has been anti-Semitism in communist societies too. Anyway, it's a differentiation from the old fashist right-wing anti-Semitism. Raphael1 09:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I like it. Good luck in getting POV warriors to accept it or even to respond to it. I know you are having trouble even getting a response and you wouldn't be the first to fail. Seriously, good luck though.--Tbeatty 03:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. Raphael1 09:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello,

I appreciate your effort in suggesting a concise introduction to this article. I have some problems with the proposed introduction you've suggested, but am prepared to enter into negotiations for change in a spirit of good faith.

I have written already that "Left-wing politics and its opposition to Zionism" is inappropriate phrasing, as the Left does not have a unified view towards Zionism.

I also have some difficulties with defining NAS as both A) a resurgence in anti-Semitism, and B) a new type of anti-Semitism. My rationale is as follows: if it is "A", it cannot be exclusively defined as "B"; if it is "B", it cannot bear sole responsibility for "A". The "old" anti-Semitism has not disappeared, and is demonstrably a part of the modern resurgence (the existence of which I do not dispute).

The wording in the second paragraph needs some tweeking as well, and I believe the general order of the sentences should be reversed. We should also note that some scholars have questioned the appropriateness and applicability of the term.

Comments are welcome. CJCurrie 02:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

1.) You are right, that the Left does not have a unified view towards Zionism, therefore "Left-wing politics and opposition to Zionism" resp. "Left-wing politics and Anti-Zionism" would be a better wording. 2.) I think, that the rationale goes like this: NAS is (mainly) responsible for the resurgence, even if "old" right-wing anti-Semitism has not disappeared. 3.) Even if there are "scholars" who question the term, we shouldn't give those "scholars" too much weight by mentioning them in the introduction. Raphael1 21:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Responses:

Point 1) seems to be settled.

2) The problem is that the current wording equates the NAS with a recent surgence in anti-Semitism. While I recognize that "A" and "B" are related, I do not think there is any rationale for describing them as "one and the same". I believe we should describe the term as referring to a perceived attitudinal shift, and then mention its relationship to a general increase in anti-Semitic activity.

3) Well, this seems to be the point at issue. I would submit that opponents of the term merit a mention; even if they don't, we should at least note that the nature and extent of the phenomenon is by no means agreed upon.

CJCurrie 02:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Point of order: No one has agreed to mediation and I've specifically declined it, so please don't post any more tags with instructions on the talk page. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

(moved from SV's talk page) As a point of "order", I'll mention that since the Cabal is strictly informal you are more than welcome to ignore my recommendations entirely but given that I presume good faith on the editor that has requested mediation, the mediation tags were entirely appropriate. Mediators are not required to get prior consent from all involved parties before getting the ball rolling.

Strictly personally, I'm rather disapointed that a respected editor would refuse to consider outside help when it is freely given to give a hand with the current conflict. At the moment, tempers are running high and an uninvolved editor can be a good calming influence. My suggestions for the introduction are meant to defuse the rethoric associated with such a volatile topic so that the editors can concentrate on expanding and cleaning up contents. This is what I have endeavored to do.

At this time, the article is suffering from a minor edit war, and informal mediation is often the best way to defuse the situation. But, like any other informal process, it is strictly voluntary. As I've stated before, you are more than welcome to ignore me entirely. If you feel that I've slighted you, or that I have handled this case poorly, you are welcome to complain (just as informally, I'm affraid). Coren 02:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, Coren, I don't mind what you do informally, but please don't tag the talk page, because no one has agreed to anything, and mediation with only one "side" involved isn't mediation. Actually, I think people are very close to agreeing anyway. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Coren, do not spam talk pages with tags telling people not to refactor or archive. It's frankly none of your business what other editors do, and trying to order people around on talk pages is disruptive. No mediation is taking place there because no one has agreed to it. If I want mediation, I will ask the mediation committee. In the meantime, if you want to edit the article or talk page as a regular editor, you are of course welcome to do so. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Someone tell me I've made a mistake, please. The proposed mediator has made 33 edits to articles?? [4] This is absurd. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

With this user yes. (I keep forgetting what my password is for long periods of time-- apparently, not trying to remember for a couple of months lets my fingers do the remembering). Is there a reason why you are now attacking me rather than attempting to see what I have contributed? Incidentally, you might have missed the blinking warning on that page stating that the data is no longer updated.

At any rate, I will not participate in an edit war over this. Given that at one of the editors named as a party is actively opposed to attempts at informal mediation, I will recuse myself from this case. Coren 04:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

What, you're saying this is a sockpuppet account? Coren, the page stopped updating only recently, so if you have more than 33, it's not much more. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to be a mediator? You have to be a very good and experienced editor (both, not just one) who has a more thorough understanding of the policies and guidelines than most other editors. Ideally, you have to be a better editor than anyone you're mediating for (not always possible, of course, but it helps.) You need to be able quickly to size up a situation and be able to absorb lots of information accurately and quickly. You have to know the community well so you can judge which editors you can trust. You need to be very diplomatic, or at least be capable of it. You don't wade into situations where people have said they don't want mediation. You don't stick giant tags on talk pages telling people what to do when they've said they don't want your help. You don't post to people's talk pages about how disappointed you are in them because they've said no. Please recuse yourself from all cases until you have more experience, because you'll honestly do more harm than good. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

With this user yes. (I keep forgetting what my password is for long periods of time-- apparently, not trying to remember for a couple of months lets my fingers do the remembering).

I believe that Coren is saying he has started a new account after forgetting his old password, and I would hazard to suggest that this is not the same as setting up a sockpuppet account.

I would also note that the tone of SlimVirgin's previous comments is unfortunately typical of the tone she has employed throughout the entire discussion on Talk:New anti-Semitism.

I have approached this subject in good faith, attempting to offer constructive suggestions for improving the article. I have stated (on numerous occasions) that I'm willing to enter into good-faith negotiations on the most contentious points. In return, I have been subjected to repeated insults and personal attacks, false speculation as to my motives, and some comments that I can only describe as bizarre. It has not always been easy to observe the letter of Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:AGF when a fellow contributor is manifestly not doing the same, and when the same contibutor seems uninterested in engaging in substantive discussion.

This is not, of course, the first time that I've been subjected to treatment of this sort. I'm a Wikipedia veteran, and have negotiated difficult situations in the past. In the past, however, the people I've had run-ins with have been fringe characters: vandals, nuisances, extremists, Ayn Rand followers (joking), and so forth. From my vantage point, this is the first time I've been unjustly attacked by someone who should know better.

I would invite readers to look over the recent discussion on Talk:NAS (including the most recent archived section), and compare the respective contributions of SlimVirgin and myself. If I have acted inappropriately, please inform me. If SlimVirgin has acted inappropriately, please inform her. Thank you, CJCurrie 03:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

CJCurrie, the article was in the process of being rewritten when you turned up to disrupt it a few weeks ago. Your position seems to be that you personally know nothing about the new anti-Semitism; therefore it doesn't exist and we should say it doesn't exist in the intro. This is an untenable position. There are plenty of people in the world who are Holocaust deniers, but we don't give their views space in the intro of Holocaust. All authoritative sources (those who have studied it seriously) agree that the Holocaust occurred, and all authoritative sources (likewise, those who have studied it seriously) agree that the new anti-Semitism exists. The problem is that you haven't (and apparently refuse to) read any of their material.

That you continue to snipe here, a page with no relevance to the discussion, shows your lack of commitment to getting this sorted. I have offered to find an experienced informal mediator, so please help to find a solution, rather than continuing to exacerbate the problem. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Responses:

1.

May I suggest that comparisons with Holocaust denial are not acceptable commentary on another editor's contributions. To repeat User:HOTR's comments:

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.

2.

CJCurrie, the article was in the process of being rewritten when you turned up to disrupt it a few weeks ago.

I imagine that most articles are in the process of being rewritten, as per standard Wikipeda practice. However, the page history suggests that no substantive changes were made in the two weeks prior to my arrival (which is more accurately called my return, as I was involved in a similar NAS discussion some time ago).

I am not "disrupting" the page, and repeating this suggestion does not make it factual.

3.

Your position seems to be that you personally know nothing about the new anti-Semitism; therefore it doesn't exist and we should say it doesn't exist in the intro.

I submit that the previous statement is typical of the tone that SlimVirgin has taken toward the entire discussion. Suffice it to say that she has not sufficiently grasped the nature of my position.

4.

That you continue to snipe here, a page with no relevance to the discussion, shows your lack of commitment to getting this sorted.

On the contrary, I'm suggesting that other editors review the recent discussion and make suggestions.

5.

I have offered to find an experienced informal mediator, so please help to find a solution, rather than continuing to exacerbate the problem.

Perhaps you missed my "Feel free to suggest a name" response on the Talk:NAS page. CJCurrie 02:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)