Talk:New anti-Semitism/archive 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] 1949 Commentary article

The article's "History" section currently begins as follows:

An early use of the concept in close to its modern form was in the late 1940s, when the Soviet Union was accused of pursuing a "new anti-Semitism" against Jews, of the sort manifested in the so-called Doctors' plot, a supposed conspiracy by Jewish doctors to poison the Soviet leadership. [1] Stalinist opposition to "rootless cosmopolitans" – a euphemism for Jews – was rooted in the belief, as expressed by Klement Gottwald, that "treason and espionage infiltrate the ranks of the Communist Party. This channel is Zionism." [2]

There are some problems with this section.

  • Solomon Schwarz's article was published three years before the "Doctors' plot", making the link somewhat tenuous.
  • On a more fundamental level, Schwarz's article is only tangentially focused on the relationship between Zionism and anti-Semitism. Consider the following:
The unexpectedness of this rapid succession of apparently anti-Semitic moves has caused commentators to improvise hasty explanations. The most popular of these is that Jews are, by cultural and familial ties, internationalist in outlook and therefore do not fit very snugly into the recent wave of officially fostered Russian nationalism. Another school of thought holds that the setting up of a Jewish state in Palestine has reawakened outlawed Zionist sympathies in the Jews of Russia proper as well as in the annexed sectors of Poland. Both of these explanations are pertinent, but they do not get to the heart of Soviet anti-Semitism. (p. 536)
The particular virulence of the present purge of Jewish intellectuals -- the purge of Jews from the political apparatus having been to a large extent already achieved -- is apparently due to the convergence of the revived bureaucratic anti-Semitism of the late 30's with the postwar growth of Russian nationalism as a political instrument of the Soviet government. Unquestionably such specific factors as the wave of general xenophobia sweeping Russia -- a Xenophobia which daily becomes part of the permanent cultural atmosphere of the country rather than a passing excess -- as well as the Soviet disappointment over the composition of the new Jewish state, also play an important part in the genesis of the incidents that are arousing apprehension among Jews everywhere.
But it is to the careful study of the Russian system that we must look for the social context in which such political and diplomatic developments bear fruit in anti-Semitic sentiments and actions. (p. 545)

Most of Schwarz's article is focused on "popular" or institutional forms of anti-Semitic discrimination within the Soviet state, and has nothing whatever to do with Zionism or Israel. It does not represent "an early use of the concept in close to its modern form", and is accordingly an unsuitable source for our article.

  • Once Schwarz's article is excluded, the remainder of the paragraph appears untenable -- at least in its present form. The only other external source currently provided is a brief fragment from Pravda, which is critical of Zionism but does not reference the term "rootless cosmopolitans" (despite an inference to the contrary). Whether or not the Pravda fragment is anti-Semitic is a subject for debate; identifying it as representative of "new anti-Semitism" seems more than a bit dubious.
  • The anti-Semitic character of the "Doctors' Plot" has been addressed by innumerable historians, and is not particularly controversial. However, no reliable evidence been provided in this article to demonstrate that the "Doctors' Plot", or Stalin's purges generally, are relevant to the modern concept of "new anti-Semitism". Once the Schwarz article is excluded, there are no reliable sources in our article which link Stalin's late period of rule with the "new anti-Semitism" term.

Given that my last attempt to remove something from this article led to an inane month-long dispute (in which some editors argued for the retention of a demonstrably inaccurate statement), I'm prepared to wait for a response before deciding what to do with the paragraph. If other editors (i) believe that the basic thrust of the paragraph is relevant to the article, and (ii) are able to cite appropriate sources to demonstrate its relevance, then it may be possible for the paragraph to be retained. In its current form, however, it is clearly unacceptable.

Comments welcome. CJCurrie 01:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Why didn't you object to it when ChrisO added it? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps I found it innocuous at the time. I can't remember.
I'll assume that you have no objections to raise. CJCurrie 07:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Would Armon please explain why he returned the paragraph? CJCurrie 08:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Because there's no consensus to remove it. Please leave it there and don't start another revert war to remove material other people have written that has been there for a long time. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Um, WP:BOLD. Could we please use this page to actually discuss reverts as well as changes? —Ashley Y 08:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
This is not a page that editors should be bold on, because it's too controversial, as it says at the top of this page. Such large changes, especially the deletion of long-standing material, has to be discussed in advance, and then only carried out if people agree. No response does not signal agreement. CJCurrie does this far too often and it causes trouble every time. He also only does it in areas where he feels the left is being criticized, which is tiresome and I wish it would stop. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it's sensible to discuss a big change in advance, but I think no response actually signals no objection. If someone comes along later and reverts, they should probably at least discuss it afterwards on the talk page. —Ashley Y 09:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Response:
(i) I don't consider the removal of this paragraph to be a "large change".
(ii) I don't consider this deletion to be especially controversial, nor do I consider it to be "causing trouble".
(iii) I've outlined a case for deleting the paragraph. No one has responded.
(iv) For some curious reason, most questionable assertions throughout the history of this article have had to do with criticism of the left.
(v) I have no particular desire to defend the Soviet Union, but I don't believe the paragraph is relevant to the concept of "new antisemitism".
Sigh ... in my naivete, I actually thought a change this simple could be accomplished without a protracted standoff. Apparently not. Could others please respond to my original post? CJCurrie 09:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the USSR is important here. Even today, the rhetoric and the imagery used by the Left comes straight from the Soviet propaganda: anti-colonialism, anti-apartheid, anti-imperialist, etc. Let's keep in mind that what they shyly called "anti-Zionism" was a rallying cry throughout the Cold War. As you noted yourself, "Schwarz's article is only tangentially focused on the relationship between Zionism and anti-Semitism." ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
That's presumably why ChrisO added it in the first place. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I reverted and was going to discuss here, but real life got in the way. It's fair comment that I should have explained myself. Basically it's the same reasons SV and Hummus gave, it's important historical context which, if anything, should be expanded IMO. I don't agree with your reasons to exclude Schwarz's article. If fact, in the quotes you presented he's clearly talking about "the Soviet disappointment over the composition of the new Jewish state" or "anti-Zionism" as a key pretext for Soviet antisemitism. <<-armon->> 11:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Our use of the Schwarz article would indeed seem to constitute OR. HumusSapiens post above sums up the grounds for its inclusion, without quite realizing those grounds are pure OR. Armon says that in the cited passages Schwarz is "clearly talking about the Soviet disappointment over the the composition of the new Jewish state." Yes, Schwarz clearly mentions this, but only as an example of an unsatisfactory explanation, something that fails to "get to the heart of Soviet anti-semitism."
Are there others with substantive responses to CJ? He's made a serious case here, which merits a more serious response than has yet been provided. --G-Dett 21:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Jay, I asked "who but Wikipedians says that what these 1949 and 1952 writings describe is NAS 'in close to its modern form'?" You say you still don't understand what I'm getting at, so I thought I'd explain here and give you a chance to self-revert. CJ's demonstrated at length why this paragraph is problematic. His reasons are sound and have yet to be answered with any detail or seriousness. What I'm adding is only a footnote to this, but it's enough on its own to disqualify the paragraph. If you only have energy to respond to one of us, however, let it be him.

The question that CJ raised is, how does this writing from 1949 belong here, if its author is stressing that what he means by "new antisemitism" has little to do with Zionism? Are we trying to give the subject of this article a historical pedigree – "an early use of the concept in close to its modern form," etc. – by referencing something written over a half-century ago, on the grounds that it uses the same phrase – "new antisemitism" – while arguably if not unequivocally meaning something else by it? The "new" of 1949 is not necessarily the "new" of the 21st-century, and after all the new this or the new that is about as generic a phrase as can be imagined. This is why I asked, what reliable source is saying that the subject of the 1949 article is the forerunner of what is now (controversially) called "new antisemitism"? As far as I can tell, it's a Wikipedian who's decided this. But please correct me if I'm wrong.--G-Dett 03:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The 1949 Commentary article has no clear connection to the current concept of New Antisemitism. It just mentions en passant Zionism as one possible cause for the purge of Jewish intellectuals. There was no follow-up. It seems a bit far-fetched to make mention of this article here. I fully support removing it.
Also, please note that the Talk page is where proposals for changes are made. If someone disagrees with a proposed change, they should say so and say why, rather than filibustering the proposal by not responding to it.--Abenyosef 04:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Update

I first raised objections to the "1949 Commentary article" paragraph on March 10. Since then, three editors have responded on this page to indicate their objection to its removal.

  • In response to my question as to why Armon restored the disputed paragraph, SlimVirgin wrote the following: "Because there's no consensus to remove it. Please leave it there and don't start another revert war to remove material other people have written that has been there for a long time." She later added: "This is not a page that editors should be bold on, because it's too controversial, as it says at the top of this page. Such large changes, especially the deletion of long-standing material, has [sic] to be discussed in advance, and then only carried out if people agree. No response does not signal agreement. CJCurrie does this far too often and it causes trouble every time. He also only does it in areas where he feels the left is being criticized, which is tiresome and I wish it would stop."
  • Humus sapiens wrote the following: "I think the USSR is important here. Even today, the rhetoric and the imagery used by the Left comes straight from the Soviet propaganda: anti-colonialism, anti-apartheid, anti-imperialist, etc. Let's keep in mind that what they shyly called "anti-Zionism" was a rallying cry throughout the Cold War. As you noted yourself, "Schwarz's article is only tangentially focused on the relationship between Zionism and anti-Semitism."
  • Armon wrote the following: "Sorry, I reverted and was going to discuss here, but real life got in the way. It's fair comment that I should have explained myself. Basically it's the same reasons SV and Hummus gave, it's important historical context which, if anything, should be expanded IMO. I don't agree with your reasons to exclude Schwarz's article. If fact, in the quotes you presented he's clearly talking about "the Soviet disappointment over the composition of the new Jewish state" or "anti-Zionism" as a key pretext for Soviet antisemitism."

My responses:

  • SlimVirgin's opposition to removing the paragraph appears to rest upon two planks: (i) the fact that it has been in the article for some time, and (ii) the fact that CJCurrie supports its removal. She has not provided any defence of the paragraph itself.
  • Humus sapiens's argument that "the imagery used by the Left comes straight from the Soviet propaganda: anti-colonialism, anti-apartheid, anti-imperialist, etc." is Original Research, as G-Dett has already noted. While his belief that "the USSR is important here" may be heartfelt, he has not shown any evidence that Soviet anti-Zionism (or Soviet anti-Semitism) dating from 1949-52 is relevant to the modern concept of "new antisemitism". I'm hesitant to comment on his statement, "As you noted yourself, Schwarz's article is only tangentially focused on the relationship between Zionism and anti-Semitism.", as I'm not entirely certain of what he's trying to argue.
  • Armon's objection is based on a misreading of the source material. Schwarz explictly argues that "Soviet anti-Zionism" and "the Soviet disappointment over the composition of the new Jewish state" is not central to Soviet anti-Semitism circa 1949.

No-one has yet presented a credible defense of the paragraph, although this hasn't stopped SlimVirgin and her allies from resisting all attempts to delete it. I would suggest that if editors want the paragraph to be retained, they should be prepared to argue a more convincing case in its favour. Alternately, if editors want to cite connections between Soviet anti-Zionism and "new antisemitism", they should be prepared to provide better sources.

From what I can tell, the only thing linking Solomon Schwarz's article to the modern concept of "new antisemitism" is that fact that the phrase "New Anti-Semitism" appears in the title. This is not a particularly compelling connection. The phrase itself is fairly generic, and has only taken on a particular meaning since 2000 (or 1973, if you want to trace it back to the first ADL book). The fact that the words "New Anti-Semitism" appear in a 1949 article is not particularly relevant, and I rather doubt that any recent works promoting the term "new antisemitism" have made use of Schwarz's observations.

Schwarz's article is not focused on the Soviet Union's opposition to Zionism, and Schwarz himself was not prescient enough to foresee the "Doctor's Plot" three years later. The article is about "popular" prejudice and institutional barriers to advancement, and its title refers to mutations in Soviet anti-Semitism from the 1920s and '30s. It is not, as such, relevant to an encyclopedia article on the modern "new antisemitism" concept.

Of course, it might be possible to retain the disputed paragraph if other editors are willing to acknowledge that the term "new anti-Semitism" has had different meanings in different historical contexts, and to restructure the article accordingly. Past experience suggests that such an acknowledgement will not be forthcoming.

If no-one can make a credible case for retaining the paragraph in the next day or so, then I can see no reason why it should not be removed. CJCurrie 01:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This should be a fairly simple matter. If there's a source connecting the 1949 Commentary article to the phenomenon of "New Antisemitism" as defined by our article, then we should cite that source. If there isn't, it's OR and should be removed. Same with the mention of the "Doctors' Plot."--G-Dett 15:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External sites/further reading

Hi Slim, geocites isn't appropriate is it? Also, frontpagemag.com is an attack site isn't it? --Tom 23:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not an attack site. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Foreign-language links

English language links are strongly preferred in the English-language Wikipedia. It may be appropriate to have a link to a foreign-language site, such as when an official site is unavailable in English, when the link is to the subject's text in its original language or they contain visual aids such as maps, diagrams, or tables, per the guideline on foreign-language sites.

When linking to a site in a foreign language under the exceptions above, label the link with a language icon, available for most languages, using two-letter language codes: for example, {{es icon}}, {{fr icon}}, etc. --WP:EL#Foreign-language_links

Someone said that foreign language links should be removed. That's overstating the case, though clearly English is strongly prefered. I don't read Hebrew; to what extent are the articles at http://www.geocities.com/byemini/yemini.html a 'unique' contribution to the debate? Regards, Ben Aveling 00:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't care about this link either way. I was concerned about the removal of Frontpage mag as an "attack site." SlimVirgin (talk) 00:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Well perhaps I was too brief in my edit summary but given the combination of (1) foreign language and (2) hosted on Geocities... I'm having difficulty seeing how that link qualifies under a combo of WP:EL and WP:RS. (→Netscott) 00:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Neither hosting on geocities (convenience links are allowed) nor foreign language (also allowed) would disqualify it. However, those issues apart, I don't see it as particularly useful. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
(e/c)Which falls under WP:EL. Essentially, does the link provide content in that foreign language that is more or less essential to the topic at hand and the same content can't be found in English? I think you're answering that question with your response Slim Virgin. Thanks. (→Netscott) 00:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Netscott for your imput and help with that external link. Slim was telling me to read the WP:EL policy when in fact it seemed that she need the refresher course. Anyways,--Tom 01:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Not that it matters, but I didn't advise you to read WP:EL and it's not a policy. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Slim, which policies were you referring to here? And I see that WP:EL is a MOS or guideline? Is it me or is this place overly policy/guideline ridden. Anyways, no big deal, I have trying to remove external links lately that are "not appropriate" whatever that means :) Cheers, --Tom 01:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Just so there's no misunderstanding about this. If other editors see that link as having compelling content that's essential to this topic and can't be found elsewhere in English then I'd certainly not have any problem seeing it come back. I say this because I must admit that I don't read Hebrew and made my editorial decision about this from the look of the site and what I percieved to be shortcomings about the link. (→Netscott) 01:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
And it's not like there's a shortage of external links from this article... Ben Aveling 00:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead

Mackan, please don't change the lead over objections. Just because people don't keep on responding to your many, many posts doesn't mean they agree. Your changes don't improve anything and you're removing sources. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? There's been plenty of response and discussion of this issue. —Ashley Y 05:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Where did I say there hadn't been discussion, Ashley? SlimVirgin (talk) 05:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Quite. And that discussion has generated a rough consensus. —Ashley Y 06:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
The issue has been discussed ad nauseum, as you know, for over a month, and achieved a clear concensus of a large number of editors on the talk page, at least 6 of whom directly participated in creating the new version. Also, I did not remove any sources, but made sure to retain them, and simply moved one in accordance with the new version. Is this ok then? Also, am I wrong to think that if you disagreed with the change, that perhaps you could have spoken up over the last month while we were discussing it? Mackan79 05:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Until the objections become more detailed and engaged, I think it should be fine to go ahead and keep editing the article, reverting non-constructive deletions as we go along. WP:Consensus is not meant to provide veto powers through stonewalling.--G-Dett 14:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Leifern, have I gathered correctly from the above that you would be ok with the change to the lead? I think we should try to separate this from the original research issue later on. I tend to agree with G-Dett on both points, but am somewhat skeptical of our ability to decide this all together. If you don't object, Leifern, I'll reintroduce the new lead, without comment on the second OR issue, just so we can try to deal with this appropriately. Mackan79 15:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It depends on which version of the lead you're talking about :-) Seriously, we should be able to come up with something reasonable, and then maybe structure the rest of the article in a reasonable way. I would recommend that we keep proposing new leads here or on a separate page and critique it earnestly with each other. But I want to state for the record that it's NPOV to say that Israel has defense needs, just like Palestinians have humanitarian and political needs and rights. This could devolve into the depths of pettiness unless we're willing to be serious about it. --Leifern 16:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I think we're all doing a little mixing of the two articles here :) Revise comment for New Antisemitism (I think you're still in Talk:Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid mode)? The question related to whether we should use the new formulation that is clearer about the connection between NAS and anti-Zionism. I won't repeat since I know you've been following the discussion. Mackan79 17:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protect

I have protected this entry due to excessive revert warring. Please try to settle disputes in a civil and collaborative fashion here on the Talk page. Just blindly reverting each other will not work. Try to find a middle ground, which I am sure exists. I would like to unprotect the entry as soon as possible, so please settle down and give collaboration a chance. Thanks, Crum375 16:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You had every reason to protect the page, Crum375, but I'm not sure a cooling-off period is going to help much. The edit-warring may be borne of frustration, frayed nerves, etc. on one side, but it appears to be strategy on the other. That is to say, there are influential editors on one side of this who refuse even to address the patiently detailed arguments of their opponents on the talk page, but hasten to revert edits that result from the very process they're refusing to participate in – citing a lack of consensus. This in effect turns stonewalling into veto-power. Short of comprehensive mediation, I don't see a way out of this.--G-Dett 00:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Then why not go for mediation? Crum375 00:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
We have tried it. Mel came in here for a while, but editors involved in the edit wars that precipitated his arrival were no more enthusiastic about mediation than they are about discussion, and Mel, by and by, went his way. The aborted mediation was thereafter archived.--G-Dett 01:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Crum375, have a look at CJ's latest post,[1] which came in minutes ago, just after I reponded to your protection. It's an almost poignant example of what I'm talking about – a patient, detailed, enduringly courteous (all things considered) attempt to engage with a programmatically obstinate and unresponsive opposition.--G-Dett 01:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
If I may make a suggestion, instead of attacking everything at once, or presenting long dissertations for each side, why don't you at least agree on what is the most critical and contentious issue, and then focus solely on that one item? Try to reduce it to its barest and simplest form, and then someone external may be able to mediate. If it's a complex set of issues, it may appear too intimidating to uninvolved parties, who are all working as volunteers. Then stay with that one issue until resolved, and then repeat the process. Crum375 01:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Such a strategy will only be successful if both sides are interested in pursuing a timely resolution of the controversy. Recent experience suggests otherwise. CJCurrie 01:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm optimistic that we can establish a consensus among those willing to discuss here. —Ashley Y 01:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately Crum, I think if you can imagine it, we've probably tried it. That said, I think your point about separating the issues is actually an important problem here, but perhaps also a reason why the edit history may look more contentious that it has really been. Due to lock downs in the past, and extended month-long attempts to discuss the individual issues, we seem to have had a number of things pile up unresolved. This has created some confusion, to be sure, but my guess is that with a little effort we may actually be able to work through it. Of course, this may fail as well. Pretty clearly the pure-talking stage has been worn about as thin as it can go, though, which I think people on both sides here will agree. That's not to say we'll stop talking, but perhaps that the editing and talking really need to go together at this point. Mackan79 01:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
So what do you suggest is the best way to proceed, given this situation? Crum375 02:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
My suggestion would be formal mediation. We've tried informal mediation twice, and in both cases it's ended without a full resolution of the controversies. Formal mediation is the next logical step. CJCurrie 02:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Makes sense to me at this point. Alternatively, we could simply try reopening the page for one last shot to see what happens, but you're probably right, Crum, that the number of issues will prevent this from working. Mackan79 02:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I have a technical question: am I permitted to add "dubious" template notices to the article while protection is in effect? I pose the question because there is currently no indication in the article itself that the "1949 Commentary" paragraph is a subject of dispute. CJCurrie 01:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we're supposed to touch it at all while it's protected. —Ashley Y 02:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I know that's generally the rule, but I'm wondering if an exception can be made to indicate the existence of a dispute. CJCurrie 02:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I think for now we should refrain from making any changes unless they have unanimous support. Since this is a non-BLP entry, I don't see a problem if there are still unresolved issues or disputes. Crum375 02:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that there's currently no indication that a dispute exists. I'm also a bit concerned that some editors who have an interest in defending the status quo version will try to prolong the page protection for as long as possible. CJCurrie 02:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
In response to both threads above, I would suggest that you try to initiate formal mediation, and that status could then be indicated on the entry in some way. Crum375 02:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
This makes sense. CJCurrie 02:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Crum, would you mind changing the "protected2" template to "protected"? That's always been the de facto signal that the article is disputed. Kla'quot 04:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I personally prefer the protected2, as I find it more aesthetic and less intrusive and I would like to see it used site-wide. I think the use of templates should be reduced to a bare minimum, especially in article space, as we seem to be drowning in it. Just looking at the top of this page is a good example. As far as a sign of a dispute, I agreed that it may make sense to add an indication (as much as I dislike the concept) once the article is in formal mediation, but in general I assume that almost every hard-protected entry represents a dispute of some kind. Crum375 11:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm willing to engage in mediation, formal or otherwise, with serious editors. The reason I stayed away from the latest informal attempt is that there seemed to be a degree of trolling involved and I'm not willing to feed it. If the editors who have problems with the article could choose a couple of representatives (people who've made serious contributions to the article or the talk page), perhaps the other "side" could do the same; any mediation would therefore be seriously conducted and, I suspect, swiftly and successfully concluded. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
If we're going to do mediation, I would suggest that it be formal. I'd also suggest that editors who wish to partipate may do so. Either way, I might suggest that CJCurrie, G-Dett and I have been the most heavily involved, and would probably be the primary participants for the one side. If necessary, we may be able to communicate concerns or comments from others, if others think this fair. Beyond that, I'll have to defer to CJCurrie a little, who seems to have gone through this before. Mackan79 16:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I would nominate either CJ or Mackan, both of whom have greater gifts of diplomacy than I do. When I come across substantive, patiently detailed posts with no trace of personal bile dismissed as "trolling," I lose patience quickly.
Between CJ and Mackan – Ashley would also be a good choice, now that I think of it – it's a toss-up. CJ has the edge on experience, and he has a deep knowledge of the subject, so if he's willing that would be great.--G-Dett 16:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
You, Ashley, AbenYosef, Itsmejudith, others, I think anyone who wants to participate is really entitled, or else it probably can't be a mediation. Personally, I wouldn't be comfortable as a substitute for either CJCurrie or you, based on the amount and value of each of your recent contributions. Nevertheless, I think at least the three of us should participate, as well as any others (of course within reason) who would like to do so.Mackan79 18:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd be happy with CJCurrie. As for a second party, Jmabel has made the next greatest number of contributions to the article after CJCurrie. (The editors with the highest number of contributions are, in order, SlimVirgin, Jayjg, CJCurrie, and Jmabel.) Alternatively, as Ian Pitchford made the most recent substantive edit that attracted opposition, he'd be a good alternative to Jmabel. He's an editor who's known for his serious contributions in general. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd actually like very much for G-Dett to contribute as well, but will of course defer if she doesn't wish to. I think she has a very valuable perspective, though, and a lot of expertise, which could only help. I'm also simply not sure limiting the mediation to merely four people, in the hope that they'll represent all opinions on these issues, is really the best approach. My experience is that mediation normally involves more people. Regarding SlimVirgin's opinions on the editors who should represent the opposing side in the mediation, I think there are fairly widespread concerns here about various editors' behavior, but that we'll probably have to move beyond this if we'd like for this to be succesful. I'll say straight-forwardly that I think the mediation is very important, and that I would very much want to be involved, as I think any editor in good standing who has been involved here is entitled to be. Mackan79 18:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I would find that very difficult. What we want is for the content issues to be sorted out, not for another long drawn-out series of arguments to take place, and I hope you share that desire. I'm certain you could communicate your concerns to CJCurrie and whoever else is chosen. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the situation is unavoidably difficult at this point. Pretty clearly, I think the three people who have been the most involved over the entire course of the current dispute are CJCurrie, G-Dett and myself. I understand the situation has become uncomfortable, but I'm not sure there is a valid basis for excluding any of the three of us from participating. I also don't think we have any right to rule out the involvement of any others without giving them time to respond. I would invite others to respond, but I think in fairness, each side should decide how they want to approach this, and then the two sides should decide whether they agree. I do hope we can make this work out. Mackan79 18:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

<-- It isn't true that you've been mostly involved. This problem goes back at least a year, and you only became involved a few weeks ago. You may recall that you arrived here after I tried to broach the subject with you on Talk:Antisemitism that you seemed to be focused on adding negative material to articles about Jews, even though you appeared not to be familiar with the topics you were editing, and how you seemed to be convinced that you, and only you, were capable of neutrality. I told you that worried me. I wrote the following (two posts combined):

Your edits are often POV and, more importantly, show no knowledge of the subject matter you're editing. In addition, you seem to focus on Jews. That raises certain questions, and they are legitimate questions, not only about the editor, but also about content. You're asking people to spend time answering your questions on talk, which are often wrong-headed because you haven't read the literature, and although this is very time-consuming, you expect them to do it without a peep. If they don't, you start reverting on the grounds that no one is replying to you, and you ask other people with no knowledge of the subject to join in reverting with you in order to keep it going. You then complain that people are unjustly suspicious of you. Please think about the reasonableness of that position ... We have a lot of people turning up at these articles claiming to have a monopoly on neutrality. Often, they wear their lack of knowledge as a badge of neutrality, arging that, given they know nothing about the topic, they couldn't possibly be POV. They insist their POV is simply common sense, common knowledge, NPOV. One example of someone at New antisemitism who feels they are a model of NPOV: this person changed the description of a certain lawyer who complained about new antisemitism from "a leading litigation lawyer" to ["a lawyer] who has since moved to Israel." A Jew, in other words, so bear that in mind.

This is the kind of editing we see at these articles from people who know nothing about the subject, and who for reasons best known to themselves focus on negative portrayals of Jews or Israel. Perhaps you'll allow that people who work on these articles a lot develop certain instincts about editors which, while I'm sure they're not always correct, are by no means always wrong either.

That was at 06:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC). Your response was to turn up here, an article you had never edited before, but which you knew I had edited a lot, 10 hours later at 16:15, 23 January (UTC).

I also wrote to you: "If you really want good faith to be restored, you have to help it on its way." Following me to yet another article related to Jews that you'd never edited before was an odd response, to put it mildly. As a result, I really don't want to continue the dialogue. You can communicate your concerns to CJCurrie, who is very familiar with the issues by now. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Mediation generally involves multiple parties, no? Slim, are you envisioning just you and CJ? I don't really foresee long drawn-out arguments one way or the other; indeed the pattern in the past hasn't been free-for-alls but rather non-participation. I'm not sure what "trolling" kept Slim away from Mel's informal mediation last time. Shortly before that petered out, Mel posted this: "I'm afraid that things have stalled; Mackan79 has done a sterling job characterising one side of the debate, but it's been nearly a week and there's nothing for the other side. Could someone provide a similar account of the CJCurrie, G-Dett, GraceNote, Pertn, Catchpole, Itsmejudith, and Mackan79 side please?" Leifern did produce a short account thereafter, but there was nothing from the editors most active in that dispute.
In any case, I thought we were discussing who would be the "lead" spokesman for each side, not confining the mediation process entirely to two people. I would like myself to participate, and I feel very strongly that Mackan should be present if he wants to. He has a proven track record for courteous debate, unfailing compliance with WP:AGF, and in the last, abortive mediation attempt he did an excellent job of "writing for the enemy." --G-Dett 19:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm thinking that each "side" should choose two representatives who have contributed either regularly or substantively to the article, so that mediation is efficient and swift. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I was posting at the same time as Slim's penultimate, so I hadn't yet read her blistering attack on Mackan79. I'm slightly reeling from it. I really don't know what to say, except that the insinuations of antisemitism on his part are grossly unwarranted and unworthy of an editor of her experience. Put it down to flared tempers. Water under the bridge and all; if Mackan is still willing to accept Slim as an interlocutor in mediation, then it's all the evidence anyone could ask for of his consummate wiki-diplomacy. I'm crossing my fingers that this can go somewhere, all things considered.--G-Dett 20:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't put words in my mouth. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
The words I'm talking about are on the page: "Your edits are often POV and, more importantly, show no knowledge of the subject matter you're editing. In addition, you seem to focus on Jews. That raises certain questions, and they are legitimate questions, not only about the editor, but also about content... [And then much later, speaking of a different editor] This is the kind of editing we see at these articles from people who know nothing about the subject, and who for reasons best known to themselves focus on negative portrayals of Jews or Israel..." [And again, speaking of Mackan] "you seemed to be focused on adding negative material to articles about Jews, even though you appeared not to be familiar with the topics you were editing...I told you that worried me."
The word I used for this was "insinuation." It was accurate.--G-Dett 20:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Do not quote me out of context! Really, this is exactly the problem. There it is, in a nutshell. This is my last response to you. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
"Out of context" – weak beer, Slim. What this is "in a nutshell" is rhetorical deniability, a little game of deploy and disown; you want a little cloud of suspicion to hang around Mackan's motives, but you don't want to be seen as the one who engineered it. Don't play word games with me, Slim. You never win, and you just end up feeling frazzled and looking foolish.--G-Dett 22:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, Slim, I think if you're going to post this type of comment here that you really have an obligation to discuss the matter. I am truly and fundamentally sorry that you have derived this view of my editing, if is truly the view that you hold. In fact, I have made an extraordinary effort to edit civilly and in good faith with you, as I don't even know that our political views are that far apart (not that this should matter).

In reference to your quotation above, I have to note a number of things. First is that the discussion we were having at that time in fact related specifically to whether the Antisemitism article should contain a dab link at the very top to this very page. I posted a comment on Talk:Antisemitism asking if this wasn't problematic, due to the controversial nature of this concept. I did not delete the link. I simply asked if, due to the controversiality of the subject, the link might not better be placed by the corresponding section in the article. I would really hope that anyone reading this could briefly check out the discussion to show the earnestness of my question, and the lack of any intent to bias the article in any way. [[2]] I would particularly note that Jayjg eventually agreed to remove the link,[3] without my ever having deleted it, but only once having attempted to make it stronger after another editor's attempted compromise.[4]

So in response to the question you pose again above, then, about why I would subsequently make an edit on New Antisemitism where I knew you had been editing, I tried to explain at that time (responding also to your statement that I had claimed never to have read about this topic):

When did I say that? It's not true at all. My edit on New Antisemitism was a concilliatory attempt toward a compromise, suggesting that if we simply combine the first two paragraphs, it would help clarify the concept such that the dab link here (On Antisemitism) might be ok. Please WP:AGF, I'm trying very hard to work nicely with you. I'm also interested in these subjects, though, and have read and studied and discussed them a great deal with people of all varying viewpoints, and actually, think I'm pretty well-equipped to discuss neutrality on these issues. So please don't expect me to simply go away. The Middle East is interesting, you know, for a lot of reasons. I almost have to say, though, if it's people with well-established credentials you want, isn't this kind of a peculiar medium? My understanding was that on WP, you have to be willing to discuss nicely even with complete idiots. Mackan79 17:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

to which you responded:

Fair enough, but I repeat my plea that your interest in Jewish issues — New antisemitism isn't really, or certainly isn't only, about the Middle East — be accompanied by some serious reading, and not just what's available on Google, so that frustration is minimized and good faith easier to assume. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Now, unfortunately, in your post above, you seem to have completely forgotten all of this. You now claim that I have been stalking you all this time, and that this is solely how I wound up editing on this page. But how is this even remotely plausible, when the whole discussion on Antisemitism was about this very article, and whether it should be linked to in such fashion? I simply don't understand. Moreover, you now make the even stronger claim that I "seemed to be focused on adding negative material to articles about Jews" on Wikipedia. But really, what on earth are you talking about? Are you talking about my suggestion that the Dab link be removed? Are you talking about my suggestion that New Antisemitism has to do with anti-Zionism and criticism of Israel? You must realize that this is an extremely serious accusation, and I'll say one that I categorically and absolutely deny. Can I please ask that you reconsider your evidence, and either present it to me or kindly admit that you may have jumped to a hasty conclusion?

Based on your statement above, I think your thoughtful response is really necessary. Mackan79 20:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I really can't, and don't want to, get into this. You recently turned up at Gillian McKeith, an article I had edited a lot and you hadn't edited at all. You'll doubtless have an explanation, but given we have over a million articles, it's odd that I keep seeing your name shortly after I've edited something. But regardless, I don't care. I just don't want to be involved in whatever it is.
I'm happy to go for mediation, but I won't spend any more time in pointless debates such as this one. I think both "sides" should choose two representatives, and everyone involved must be acceptable to all four parties. Then it'll happen quickly and efficiently, which is surely what everyone wants. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Slim, it appears that what you want is to be able to throw out absolutely anything about absolutely anybody, and then simply go on as if nothing happened. At some point, I'm afraid that isn't possible.
Despite your denial to G-Dett, your statement above was that this all started when you broached the topic with me that I "seemed to be focused on adding negative material to articles about Jews, even though you appeared not to be familiar with the topics you were editing." You then repeated a number of previous insinuations about my motives to the same effect. You further suggested that my response to this was to start following you around and reverting you. As I laid out above, however, these allegations are not only completely baseless, but a complete misrepresentation of our previous interaction. Now, you apparently think you don't have to say anything further about this, or apologize, or explain, or waste any more time on the matter.
Well, I'm sorry to say I disagree. As I've said here before, I know that there are bigoted editors who show up on WP, and I know that they often focus on these articles, and I don't blame you for harboring suspicions. If you're going to edit on Wikipedia, though, I think you need to be able to tell one user from another. As part of your argument here, you're saying you should not have to deal with me in mediation, because you think I've shown some pattern of objectionable behavior. Your central thesis to this is that I've shown some pattern of adding "negative material to articles about Jews." I'm sorry to say I've put up with a lot here, but this is one argument I simply can't handle. I'd like to ask you again to please support this, or to look through my contributions again, and please reconsider and apologize.Mackan79 04:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hold things up any longer, but I need this issue resolved, which has gone on for far too long. Slim, I'm serious about this, and I'm asking you again to apologize. Specifically, I'd like you to acknowledge that, despite your comments, you have absolutely no evidence of me ever adding "nagative material to articles about Jews," and that whatever your reasons, the comment was mistaken. If you will acknowledge this and apologize, I would be glad to move beyond previous concerns to the proposed mediation. If you don't, I am taking this matter to dispute resolution. Mackan79 05:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Mackan79, you keep showing up at articles SV is editing and you've never edited before, or commenting about her actions on various boards. Your opinions when you show up in these places are almost always diametrically opposed to hers, or critical of her actions, regardless of your many explanations of how you innocently ended up there. Her opinions of your editing have no doubt formed based on that. In addition, your edits at Zionism, anti-Zionism, Folke Bernadotte, New antisemitism, Religious antisemitism, Rashi Kalidi, Joseph Massad, Jews for Jesus, John Mearsheimer, etc. tend to minimize or downplay the views of Jewish/Zionist groups (or promote the views of anti-Zionists), and downplay any accusations of antisemitism or even anti-Israel bias; here's a classic example from one of your early edits: [5] Here's another where the virtually unanimous rejection of Jews for Jesus across Jewish denominations is watered down, and all sorts of footnotes supporting this point and similar ones are bizarrely removed: [6]. You can't stop someone from forming opinions about you, especially if you seem to be following them around and opposing them and/or promoting a specific viewpoint on all sorts of articles. Now please, give it a rest, and get on with the business of improving the encyclopedia. That is what you're here, for right? Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 12:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Jay, I think it's Slim who needs to give it a rest. Mackan79 has been unfailingly polite in the face of her personal abuse. In response to this courteous note from Mackan79[7] about how mediation should proceed, she unleashed a blistering personal attack with her trademark bad-faith insinuations of antisemitism,[8] and now refuses to answer Mackan's objections or otherwise deal with the fallout from this gross breach of WP:CIVIL, WP:PA, WP:AGF, and WP:TROLL. This is pure hit-and-run, badly disguised as devotion to "the business of improving the encyclopedia." Stop smearing other editors, Jay, stop abusing your admin powers, and stop trivializing antisemitism and other serious issues.--G-Dett 14:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
G-Dett, please review WP:CIVIL. By the way, accusations that someone is "abusing their admin powers" is indeed a serious issue. Jayjg (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
So are calculated, bad-faith insinuations of antisemitism. I think the irony of you quoting WP:CIVIL at this point in the discussion is self-evident.--G-Dett 14:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I would like to retract the comment about Jay abusing his admin powers, and apologize for it. Not because it's serious but because it's wrong. I've never known him to use his admin powers to leverage content disputes. The other charges I've made here are accurate, and I stand by them.--G-Dett 14:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I haven't accused anyone of antisemitism either. Perhaps you could next withdraw that accusation. Jayjg (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
No. You quite routinely traffic in that, Jay. Just last night you tried to smear me with another editor's (alleged) Holocaust denial, and you are right here right now backing up Slim's unwarranted insinuations about Mackan with further unwarranted insinuations of your own. Rather than pressing for retractions, you ought to review WP:AGF, and consider moreover whether serious discussion of a serious issue, antisemitism, is well served by phony invocations of it.--G-Dett 15:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I "routinely traffic in that"? Please quote me accusing someone of antisemitism, or calling someone an antisemite. There should be many such statements, if I "routinely traffic in that". Otherwise, we might have to broaden this "false accusation" case to include your false accusations against me. Jayjg (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, Jay, here's where [9] you explicitly accused me of being an apologist for antisemitism ("attempt[ing] to excuse antisemitism"), and followed it up with the unmistakeable insinuation that I was myself an antisemite ("all antisemites try to excuse their antisemitism"). Other editors pressed you to explain yourself after this wild attack on me, but you stonewalled, the way you're helping Slim to stonewall now. Last night, as you'll remember, you tried to smear me with another editor's (alleged) Holocaust denial. And right now, as I've said (and I don't need to supply the diffs, just scroll up this very screen til you find it), you're backing up Slim's unwarranted insinuations about Mackan with further unwarranted insinuations of your own.
But I have a feeling you're now going to play a game of direct quotation. You're going to say, "G-Dett, show me where I've said so-and-so 'is an antisemite'." You played this game last night when you pretended that Humussapiens's charge that "when it comes to Israel and Jews some users lose any sense of rationality" did not amount to an insinuation of antisemitism. It's a game of rhetorical deniability, and it doesn't fool anybody.--G-Dett 16:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
So that's the best you've got; I kinda sorta said something peripherally related to antisemitism that if you squinted your eyes and tilted your head right, you might be able to interpret as applying to you in some way. Sorry, that's not good enough when you claim that someone "routinely traffic(s) in that". Jayjg (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I should have mentioned, you also routinely traffic in limp, unconvincing denials.--G-Dett 18:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
You make my point for me. Thanks! Jayjg (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm currently writing a response to Jayjg. Slim, if you'd like to apologize, the offer remains open. Mackan79 13:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Give me a break Mackan, Jayjg and Slimvirgin have infinitely more cause to demand an apology from you than you have to demand one from them. You appear to be consciously following them around and going out of your way to provoke conflicts. Your actions are simply not productive no matter how one looks at it.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 17:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Mackan, you've been misinterpreting Slim's actions pretty much from the first time you encountered her, and you're unlikely to get any traction here, because, simply stated, you are wrong. I told you this back in December when you accused her of wikistalking you; your response has quite clearly been to do exactly that to her. I strongly suggest you change course here. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be a couple of issues intermingling here; a current dispute over content, which is related to a very long-standing meta-equilibrium between opposing points of view expressed on the page, which has also caught flame into a (multi)personal grudge match. I find myself in agreement with (see next subsection) both SV that "the points in dispute are fairly limited", and with CJCurrie that "Recent discussions ... have addressed questions of definition that were never fully resolved by past efforts at mediation." Perhaps the only way to attain some degree of stability was to refrain from attempting to fully resolve the issue, and to leave it unresolved; the question then is limited to how to introduce/summarize the topic without leaning towards either side. Gzuckier 15:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, "how to introduce/summarize the topic" is one of those vexing questions that has yet to be resolved. CJCurrie 23:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't funny the last time I edited over here and it didn't get any better. "here I should have mentioned, you also routinely traffic in limp, unconvincing denials." - which amounts to a personal attack without any pretense of argumentation. --tickle me 21:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you didn't enjoy the presentation. The "argumentation" you missed was this: the editor in question often insinuates that those he clashes with on Israel-related pages are motivated in some way by antisemitism (one example given was this[10]); as the unmistakeable stink of these insinuations fills the room he innocently disowns them, in terms that are weakly contrived and unconvincing (e.g.[11]). This is a serious problem, not a gratuitous personal attack; it needs to be addressed.--G-Dett 22:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Basis for Above Request for SlimVirgin’s Apology

Jay, you're absolutely right that I can't stop someone from forming opinions about me, and I have no intention of doing so. This is not what I am talking about. I am talking about long-standing comments and actions which are 1.) Abusive 2.) In violation of WP policy, and 3.) False. The idea that you (not SlimVirgin, to whom I can directly respond) can go through all of my edits and try to pick out certain ones to justify her accusations unfortunately cannot resolve that situation. In that regard:

1. Contrary to continuing statements, I need to make extremely clear here that I have not at any time even remotely followed SlimVirgin around Wikipedia, as I explained to her above.[12] In fact, it has been almost spectacularly the opposite, as I recently pointed out to her here. That is, while she has falsely accused me of following her to this article (ridiculous per my response above) and to Gillian McKeith (ridiculous, per here, some of the instances of her following me to articles she had never edited before to oppose me, revert me, and antagonize me include as recently as here and here, after having agreed to stop doing so here after previous incidents here and here. I should say, these were all after our editing relationship had become strained, and she should know I would find these activities provocative.

In fact, these are not the only examples, however, and should be noted to go back to our first conflict on WP, after which she immediately followed me to Folke Bernadotte, the last article I had heavily edited, and an article she had never edited before, to revert me three times in less than a half hour, without reading the material,[13], [14], [15], [16], and subsequently getting me blocked. Notably, I asked her for a sign of peace after this,[17] which she not only rebuffed, but then returned later to Folke Bernadotte to do literally the exact same thing again, [18][19][20] (noting particularly here, here, and here, where her actions toward me were strongly questioned by other respected editors on the page, including also on her talk page here.)

Note then that the issue did not stop there, however, but continued with the other pages I noted at the outset. Recent examples included here and here, after having agreed to stop doing so here.

2. Comparatively, then, the evidence that I have followed SlimVirgin around is literally non-existent. I haven’t, and in fact have made a concerted effort to avoid her, not commenting in many places where I would have liked to. What you have shown here, primarily, is that I indeed have an interest in these issues that predates any involvement with SlimVirgin. First, note that you list at least 4 articles on these issues I edited before interacting with her in any way. Second, note the percentage of them which actually involve Slim, considering her overall presence in this area and on WP. In fact, of the 9 articles Jay mentions me editing on, only 2 could even possibly have involved my following Slim, when even then, the charge is completely implausible as noted above. In the end, this is an example of just an extremely false accusation having been parading around so much that people start to assume it must be true,[21] due to my previous attempts to simply overlook the accusations (which go on, but which I’m trying not to delve into too deeply).

3. Having made these accusations, you then state that SlimVirgin’s comments are defensible because my edits “tend to minimize or downplay the views of Jewish/Zionist groups (or promote the views of anti-Zionists), and downplay any accusations of antisemitism or even anti-Israel bias,” citing then specifically this and this edit. This, then, is your substantive defense of Slim’s accusation. Four responses:

a. First, your comment here is extremely different from what Slim said, which was to repeat her “concern” that I “seemed to be adding negative material to articles about Jews,” as the reason I should not be allowed to participate in mediation. I should say, despite Slim’s later protestation, her comment is not an insinuation at all, but a very direct and factual accusation.
b. Second, your statement that my edits “tend to minimize or downplay the views of Jewish/Zionist groups” is simply meaningless. If it has come to this point, I am a moderate, secular American liberal, and my editing is entirely consistent with that position, although I try very hard not to display a point of view. Since, by itself, this is merely an accusation regarding garden-variety POV, though, I will simply point that out.
c. Third, your statement that my edits tend to “downplay any accusations of antisemitism or even anti-Israel bias” is simply false. In that regard, I might point to many attempts I have made to bring about compromises, as well as other edits I have made, partially to show my good faith. A few examples might include here here, here, and here (creating the War Refugee Board). If your argument, on the other hand, is that I am editing to reduce accusations of antisemitism more often than I am arguing to increase them, that is in fact probably true, but reflects largely the situation I tried to explain to Slim here, as well as what should be pretty clear by now, that yes, I find certain aspects of the concept of New Antisemitism concerning (though I do not reject the concept, as you have falsely stated, and I have clarified to be incorrect). I think I did a better job of explaining myself on that here and here. Again, though, I just don’t see how that is somehow out of the bounds of acceptable opinion or actions on Wikipedia, such to justify either Slim’s treatment of me or her most recent comments
d. Fourth, regarding your specific examples that you’ve taken out of everything I’ve done here, I think they’re consistent with everything I’ve just said. In the one, John Mearsheimer, I removed a long quote-farm of allegations which struck me as clearly unencyclopedic. [22] This was before I was even editing on contentious articles here, but I’d note further that the current section appears to be exactly as I left it many months ago. In the other, on Jews for Jesus, I combined a string citation of some 20 sources for a single proposition, and reduced it to the 15 which seemed appropriate and relevant. [23] The fact that these are the most controversial edits you can find of mine, I believe, is a crucial point here.

All together, then, we have three crucial points which I think are very clear, but have simply been too complicated to previously point out. 1.) No, I have not followed or harassed SlimVirgin in any way, but in fact have seriously tried to avoid her. This simply cannot excuse her statement. 2.) In fact, SlimVirgin’s treatment of me shows a long history of mistreating me in much more severe fashion than she could ever even suggest of me. This must be taken into account for a number of reasons. Finally, my actual complaint here: 3.) Slim’s accusation regarding her “concern” that I “seemed to be adding negative material to articles about Jews,” and to repeat this so prominently here, is grossly false, grossly inappropriate, and requires some sort of response from her, not further accusations about my motives for editing on Wikipedia.

Finally, as an effort to move forward here: I am willing to believe that SlimVirgin truly isn’t aware of the extent her actions toward me have appeared antagonistic, and even that she truly believes I have been going out of my way to give her a hard time (although, upon considering it now, I would hope she would also think how quickly she assumed bad faith, even stating that she herself intended to initiate dispute resolution [24]). In that regard, my ultimate request here is really only one thing: that Slim apologize for her recent statement on this page, a comment which she and nobody else has managed to justify in any way. I'll even point out that in response to G-Dett here, Slim suggests that G-Dett's assessment of the situation, which is also mine, somehow misrepresents what Slim intended to say. Perhaps, then, this need only be clarified. Having received no explanation so far, however, nor defense, nor support, nor apology, I find the situation very concerning, and hope that others will understand why I believe this requires resolution now, rather than again waiting until some later time. Mackan79 19:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Having said my piece, I'm somewhat concerned this has turned into such a behemoth as to prevent our further work on the page, or other articles. I want to be clear that this is really my worst case scenario. Slim, I don't know what you think of this -- I see you've deleted my request for an apology on your talk page -- but if there is anything you can say toward reconciling this, even while defending your actions as entirely appropriate, my hope would be that we could recognize this as a personal dispute, and one that should, in this setting, be surmountable.
I might add, Jayjg made a comment, though he somewhat weakened it, that "Perhaps everyone should simply withdraw their accusations, avoid commenting about editors, and move on to editing articles instead. This kind of drama is not helpful to Wikipedia."[25] This would truly be my best case scenario. Despite the various eyes now all looking at this, my suggestion then might be that we delete this whole section, renew our dedication to civility, and move on, by my preference with anybody taking part in mediation that would like to be, if such a mediation can be engineered. Mackan79 21:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CJCurrie's response

I am willing to act as a representative in formal mediation, if this is the will of other participants. However, I have some concern with statements made by SlimVirgin here and here. I think we can agree that "another long drawn-out series of arguments" is not in anyone's interest, but I must question whether in fact "the points in dispute are fairly limited".

Recent discussions (particularly those involving the introduction) have addressed questions of definition that were never fully resolved by past efforts at mediation. If the current process is to be successful, I submit that it will need to explore such questions in a clear and open manner.

I am not making this suggestion to poison the atmosphere, or bog down the process before it can begin. Important questions have been raised as to the relative importance of "convergence from three directions", "the role of Israel and Zionism", &c. These questions cannot be ignored by those seeking to improve the quality of the article.

In the past, I have found SlimVirgin and her allies reluctant to explore questions of definition in any real detail. I am concerned that an unduly narrow focus in the next mediation will leave important questions unanswered, and prove unsatisfactory to several parties. Our mediation should proceed at a timely pace, but should not refrain from addressing unresolved questions that have previously vexed us.

Accordingly, I would ask SlimVirgin to answer the following question: what issues should formal mediation address? It may be that I have misinterpreted your approach to the matter, and that our respective positions are not particularly divergent. The matter should be clarified as soon as possible.

I have one other concern to raise at this time. Recent discussions on this page have become increasingly polarized between two rival camps, and assumptions of good faith have long since broken down. I am not convinced that a mediation committee consisting entirely of participants from these discussions will succeed at breaking the impasse, and I believe that at least one member of any such committee should be an informed, neutral outsider. Do others agree? CJCurrie 01:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer to discuss the details once we begin mediation, if we do begin it, because the mediator will want to draw up the structure. Not sure what you mean by "committee." My suggestion is that we choose four people: two from (broadly) the camp that feels NAS may be a real phenomenon, two from (broadly) the camp that feels it may not be. Those four people then submit a RfM, which may or may not be accepted, and it's taken from there. SlimVirgin (talk)
Thank you for clarifying this point. For some reason, I was under the impression that you were proposing a binding mediation committee, with two representatives chosen from each side.
I'm not at all comfortable with the idea of excluding some contributors from formal mediation, and I do not believe that SlimVirgin's comments about "trollish contributors" are either accurate or appropriate to the discussion. Nonetheless, I'm prepared to accept this approach if others believe it's the best way to move forward. CJCurrie 02:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I am proposing a binding mediation, insofar as any mediation is binding, via the medcom. Or rather, I thought that's what you were proposing. We should choose a number of editors to represent each "side", bearing in mind that each participant must be acceptable to every other participant, because mediation is voluntary and no one can be forced into it. My suggestion is two per side. Anyway, let us know when you've decided. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe I've already stated my position: I'm skeptical as to the wisdom of limiting the number of involved parties, but will accept this method if others deem it appropriate. CJCurrie 04:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Each participant has to agree or else it can't go ahead. Let us know when you've decided who to put forward. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe this choice is mine alone. CJCurrie 05:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to participate, and I think it's very clear that previous abortive mediation efforts have failed because of too little participation rather than too much. If it must be two, however, I think CJ and Mackan would be the most effective, for the reasons previously stated.--G-Dett 03:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The word "trollish" seems to be suffering some abuse of its own. You know: when trolls are everywhere, they're nowhere... I'm also unclear why some contributors to this page are being judged by their behavior on other pages. In any event, mediation is a good idea because it will prevent one of the sides in this debate from obstructing the discussions by not responding to arguments. I agree CJ and Mack would be effective representatives of the other side, but, like G-Dett, would like not to be excluded from making occasional contributions to the mediation effort. --Abenyosef 03:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I apologize for not being able to comment further at the moment, for the reasons stated above. I hope to rejoin this discussion shortly. Mackan79 05:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I'm assuming CJCurrie will respond and either agree or disagree with my suggestion here, assuming G-Dett and AbenYosef are with on this, at which point Slim et al can respond. He might be waiting for assent from others though. G-Dett and AbenYosef, were you ok with this?

One other thing: if we want, we could always try forestalling the mediation and simply reopening the page. On the two current issues I'm aware of (the lead and OR in the history section), I'm not actually sure we really reached an end of discussion. If people would simply agree to discuss the two issues, we could give that one more shot before mediation. Othwerwise, I'm still ok with either course. Mackan79 12:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was and am fine with any of the various formal mediation arrangements suggested. I would also be fine with reopening the page, provided we had an explicit commitment from all key parties to discuss the key issues, in whatever detail necessary, without personal attacks or peremptory dismissals.--G-Dett 13:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I apologize for my delay in responding. I've already indicated my reluctance to exclude interested parties from mediation; Mackan's suggestion seems like a reasonable way to approach the issue, and to ensure that we're able to move forward one way or the other. I would also agree with the proposition that reopening the page will become a viable option, in the event that discussions over mediation enter a state of terminal delay. CJCurrie 03:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe the question, then, is to Slim and others. Do you think we can resolve this by reopening the page and trying again? It seems there is general openness to this, if editors on both sides will commit to a renewed effort to find agreement. This could prevent the need for time-consuming mediation. Otherwise, it seems there is agreement that mediation should involve all interested editors, at least on the side of CJCurrie, G-Dett, AbenYosef and myself, although we are also willing to compromise on this for good cause. Please let us know how you'd like to proceed. Mackan79 14:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Formal Mediation

Based on CJCurrie's suggestion above in response to Crum375, is there an interest in taking this page to formal mediation? Personally, I'm open to either route: that, or unprotecting the page and continuing to try to hash things out for the time being. Many of these issues are smaller, which may make mediation difficult. There's also a serious breakdown in commmunication which needs to be addressed one way or another, though. Perhaps to move this along people could weigh in. Mackan79 12:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm open to either as well. I think until we've heard from Slim, Jay, et al it will be difficult to know how to proceed.--G-Dett 15:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I do not know what's customary here, but their lack of interest with regards to the mediation by Mel Etitis was quite striking. I do not understand why, and I won't speculate. I think a formal mediation may be the only way to stop this low intensity edit-warring and communications break down that is going on now. pertn 09:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oh dear...(GA nom)

This article appears to of been in a large edit war before the page was fully protected, does this page need to be put on hold to work it out for a week, or is this problem going to be proceeding for quite awhile in mediation? It might be better to just wait until the article is at least more or less how most people want it rather than have it be nominated as a GA, since it may change greatly if there's an edit war or mediation going on. Homestarmy 22:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It won't change greatly, Homestarmy; the points in dispute are fairly limited. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moving "arguments" to the end of the article

As a reader (and former active editor of this page) who is coming to this article with fresh eyes, I find the section "Arguments for and against the concept" distracting. The average reader wants a quick, general overview. Split articles allow for extended analysis and detail. I don't know if this has been discussed before, but moving the arguments section to the end would allow the general reader to put one foot in and test the waters, before wading in up to their neck. —Viriditas | Talk 07:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

That section is the substance of the article. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
This is a good example of what happens when the writer forgets about the reader. The lead describes the three political directions where the New antisemitism originates: the left, the far-right, and Islamism. And yet, those sections are buried at the bottom of the article, while the arguments (really just a criticism section) appear after the history section. The arguments section should be merged into political directions, and the history of the term should appear below it. Criticism should split out into its own section, at the end. I don't expect a single editor on this page to agree with me, due to the entrenched warfare I've seen for the last year. I'm just letting you folks know that you are alienating the readers with the current layout. But hey, keep writing for yourselves, since the audience no longer matters. After all, it isn't like this is an encyclopedia or anything... —Viriditas | Talk 06:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The arguments aren't a criticism section. The article has been written without a criticism section because pro and anti is too simplistic (and criticism sections are generally not a good idea anyway), so the different scholarly opinions have simply been described. Some are clearly pro, some clearly anti, some more nuanced. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
The current layout consists of sections that do not unify the concepts as a whole. Keeping the structure simple is essential, and it is necessary for the reader to understand the concept. The arguments section is both an overview and a criticism section. For example, the section, "A new phenomenon" presents a selective description of the concept that should be merged with the third and fourth wave sections. There is no need to describe them as "arguments for", the concept is named, and the article is supposed to represent it, so describing it as such is redundant. If I visit an article about racism, I expect to read about racism, not "arguments for the proposal of racism". The article is supposed to represent the subject without holding hands. Arguments for the concept should be incorporated into the body of the article, namely political directions: The far right and Islamism, and The left and anti-Zionism This is obvious: "The third wave" section concerns Bernard Lewis and his perspective of the new antisemitism as an ideological form, in contrast to the previous forms based on religion and racism. "The fourth wave since 1945" section is about the history of the concept and Bauer's concern with Islamism. Arguments against the new antisemitism criticize the concept: "A new phenomenon, but not antisemitism" section is a criticism by Klug and Lerner. The section, "The Klug/Wistrich correspondence" is both a criticism by Klug and a response to Klug's criticism by Wistrich, who addresses the political directions of the far right and Islamism. Surely, you can see the relationships between this and other sections. "Criticism of Israel is not necessarily antisemitism" is a crticism of the concept of new antisemitism by Earl Raab. The section "A contradictory political ploy" is a criticism by Norman Finkelstein. If you don't like criticism sections, then at least consider merging the arguments into a new format, that guides the reader from the general to the specific, or, from the specific to the general. Right now, the article is a mess, with connected ideas appearing all over the place. From what I've seen, "Arguments" sections are even worse than criticism sections, neglecting the best interest of the reader in favor of editorial convenience. We are not writing for editors. —Viriditas | Talk 05:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
If we were writing this for a journal, I'd agree with you. I also don't go to an article about racism to read "arguments for and against." But this is Wikipedia, and there are people who argue that the phenomenon does not exist. Therefore, the best way to present the various sides is simply to say which scholar has made which argument, and in order to guide the reader as to who is roughly for and who is roughly opposed, we did arguments for and against. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zombietime

Should we really trust this source for the picture that is given such a prominent place in the article? To me it seems that this may very well be some kind of propaganda outlet or whatever. In my eyes it undermines the credibility of the article to use anonymous sources like this. See: Zombietime . What do you think? Should we replace it as soon as the protection is lifted?pertn 12:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

We've been over that picture at length, many, many times. The picture is an ideal demonstration of the argument regarding this topic, the creator is known, the source is reliable, and permission to use it has been obtained. This is the ideal picture to use. Jayjg (talk) 12:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Jayjg wrote: " This is the ideal picture to use. " and I am not surprised. It is the ideal picture for underlining your POV and it is from source that probably shares your views. I think dubious propaganda sources like this could be used, but then one should mention the quality of it in the accompanying text. Please review WP:NPOV pertn 13:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
That picture is not unrepresentative of similar posters at similar left-wing demonstrations. Where's the POV problem? If you have photos of left-wing demonstrators remonstrating with those who equate Stars of David with swastikas, you could post that, but none exist. -- TedFrank 13:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Pertn, please comment on articles, not on editors. There is no question about the veracity of the poster itself; the artist is known, and has made many similar posters, along with this one. The picture itself has been interpreted in multiple ways; some see it as antisemitic, others as clearly anti-Zionist, not antisemitic. The images touch on many of the themes discussed in the article. That is why it is an ideal picture to demonstrate the article. As for your idea about "mentioning the quality of it in the accompanying text", please review WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Jayjg (talk) 13:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
"mentioning the quality of it in the accompanying text" Agreed. A bit clumsy wording on my side there. I was merely thinking that the reader should be warned in some way that this source may not be reliable. A link to the WP article about zombietime, like proposed by TedFrank below here, is about what I had in mind. pertn 13:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The source is completely reliable. It's a photograph and it's been discussed by secondary sources. Enough. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the reliability of the source is relevant here, because it's a real photograph from a real event which has also been documented by other sources (which simply did not happen to take this particular picture). The image is also clearly relevant to the article. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 11:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] collateral issue

The picture caption's outside link to zombietime.com should be replaced with a wikilink to zombietime. TedFrank 13:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Will do, Ted, thanks. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] shades of antisemitism

http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2007/03/12/atzmons_triumph.php Zeq 14:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moving forward on formal mediation

I agree with CJ and Mackan above that there's no compelling reason to restrict the sides to two participants, and personally I'd like to participate. On the other hand, Slim points out that no one can be compelled to enter into mediation, and her participation would appear to be contingent upon this restriction. And though she hasn't said it, I gather she would vastly prefer to go into mediation with someone other than me on the other side of the table.

Equally important is the fallout from the accusations against Mackan. Mackan is almost certain to be one of the representatives for "our" side, and I gather that for him to find the mediation arrangements acceptable he'll need some sort of good-faith effort on the part of Slim to resolve the issues raised by her attack, as well as those raised by his detailed rebuttal.

CJ appears to be amenable to any arrangement agreed upon by all parties.

Here's what I propose. We can limit negotiations to two representatives per side, as Slim has requested. In addition, I will not insist on participating in the mediation. I can communicate my concerns to the representatives, CJ and Mackan. Slim, for her part, can move to resolve the issues with Mackan, ideally by withdrawing her accusations. Mackan in turn can withdraw his demand for a formal apology, and we can all move forward into low-intensity, good-faith formal mediation, and eventually back to constructive collaboration on the article itself.--G-Dett 16:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this is fair. At the same time, Slim's continuing silence, along with her recent talk page edits, make this seem unlikely. I'll say I'm really not aware of any situation where behavior such as that documented above, followed by repeated false accusations and wide-spread acceptance of those accusations, would not receive any sort of outside response or clarification. Still, I'll accept this has to do with a couple of things, including wide respect for Slim's contributions. As I said above, though, I think my comments speak for themselves, so I won't ask for further evaluation at this time.
Regarding the mediation, then, I'll accept G-Dett's gracious offer to let CJCurrie and me take the lead, in the hope of moving forward. I think G-Dett and AbenYosef should both be parties, though, and should be permitted to add comments, as should other involved editors such as Leifern. Indeed, while a stream-lined process certainly has some appeal, there is also a large sense in which mediation benefits from greater involvement than simply those who have most strongly butted heads, to reduce the personality issues, and increase the potential for helpful efforts at compromise. If we're really going to have a mediator who is going to be able to try to bridge the apparently uncompromising gap between Jayjg, Slim, CJCurrie and myself, though, I will also accept this as preferable to the nonsolutions that otherwise seem to exist, if AbenYosef agrees, in which case I would be happy to relate any concerns he had. Even then, though, I'd suggest we should leave to the mediator the option of soliciting additional comments from others involved on the page.
My suggestion then would be to present both of these to Slim and Jayjg, and that if they continue to reject the idea of multiple contributors, then we go to 2 contributors. All of us seem to agree that multiple contributors are better, but are also willing to compromise if necessary and if a good reason for this is presented. So our option 1. would be the four of us, lead by CJCurrie and myself. Option 2. would be CJCurrie and myself, relaying outside concerns, with an option for the mediator to solicit additional opinions. Comments welcome. Mackan79 19:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA on hold: Notes on fixes needed

This article seems to pass much of the requirements of WP:WIAGA. It is also nearly ready for nomination for Featured Status. If the fixes I list below can be made, and the article passes Good Article status, I would recommend a nomination for Featured status. The following problems (see WP:WIAGA for criteria) need to be addressed:

  • Per criteria 1 (c), especially organization: There are two vertical nav-boxes which are "buried" down near the bottom of the article in weird places. Perhaps these should be moved nearer to the top of the article, as it is more consistant with the style seen in most other articles that use them.

That's it. Really. This is a well written, well organized, well referenced article, and the people that maintain it should be proud, and upon the above fixes, should consider nomination for featured status. Once the fix is made, please let me know on my talk page so I can re-review it and pass it if it meets standard. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it does seem weird that the templates are down at the bottom. Anybody know if there was a reason for this? <<-armon->> 23:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, regarding the section on Lewis, we have used an article of his on New Antisemitism starting with the sentence: "it is perfectly legitimate to criticize the actions and policies of the state of Israel or the doctrines of Zionism without necessarily being motivated by anti-Semitism. The fact that this has been repeated ad nauseam does not detract from its truth."
I can not see that in the article.
I tried to add this to the article but it was locked for edit-warring. I think the article should be stable before passing the GA criteria. I don't know what the dispute is. The issue might have been solved but in case it has not, it needs to be solved first. --Aminz 11:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
That's a strawman that doesn't add to his views of what New antisemitism is. Jayjg (talk) 00:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
A strawman? Can you explain? --Aminz 02:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Jay's use of this term is idiosyncratic.--G-Dett 14:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't make any sense, even if you don't agree with his usage, it is obvious that many other people here do, that is unless your use of the word "idiosyncratic" is itself idiosyncratic.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 17:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying that Jay's posts fail to rouse team-spirit, solidarity, etc. I'm saying they fail to use the term "strawman" correctly.--G-Dett 15:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
BTW, this article is certainly well-written and well-organized. Thanks to its authors. --Aminz 11:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
This article could perhaps be a GA. There are outstanding issues relating to tendentious presentation, including significant original research in the "History" section, and a coyness about defining the subject as centrally involving Israel. It's also been noted that the article is unnecessarily long and repetitious.
We've moved to go into mediation, our second such attempt, but it appears to have stalled again pending participation of key editors.--G-Dett 11:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it can really count as "stable" while it is locked? —Ashley Y 02:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Antisemitism intro

I consider that, apart from any partisan view, articles' initial sentence is factually wrong: "New antisemitism is the concept of a new 21st-century form of antisemitism emanating simultaneously from the left, the far right, and radical Islam, and tending to manifest itself as opposition to Zionism and the State of Israel." This phrase states that the concept is emanating from the perpretrators of "new antisemitism" (listed as "the left, the far right, and radical Islam"), while those generally deny that quality. Actually correct wording would be "New Antisemitism is a concept promoted by/invented by [movements promoting the concept/nominal authors], in order to describe a new form of antisemitism attributed to ["the left, the far right, and radical Islam"] that would tend to manifest itself as opposition to Zionism and the State of Israel." It's not the best formulation possible, it could be improved, but it is still better than the current one.

I think the following quote can be incorporated to the intro probably after "Critics of the concept argue that it serves to equate legitimate criticism of Israel with antisemitism, and that it is used to silence debate."

The following quote is taken from the book: "The changing face of antisemitism" by Walter Laqueur, Oxford University Press, p.5

"At the beginning of the twenty-first century, however, "new antisemitism" refers to substantive differences as compared with earlier forms of antisemitism."
"Some observers of the European and American scene argue that there is no "new antisemitism" and that antisemitism and anti-Zionism (or anti-Israelism) are two distinctly different tendencies that should not be confused. There is no demand for the expulsion of the Jews, not even for specific anti-Jewish legislation, and in this respect too, there is a difference the present and the racialist antisemitism of the past. If this is antisemitism, they argue, there is as much, if not more, Islamophobia in the Western world, in Russia, and elsewhere."

--Aminz 09:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The third paragraph states:
Proponents of the concept argue that anti-Zionism, anti-Americanism, anti-globalization, third worldism, and opposition to the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish homeland may be coupled with antisemitism or may constitute disguised antisemitism. [2][3] Critics of the concept argue that it serves to equate legitimate criticism of Israel with antisemitism, and that it is used to silence debate. [6][7]
Other than adding the above as a cite, I don't see the necessity of expanding the intro -it's clear and to the point as it stands. <<-armon->> 23:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed it is. Some editors latch on to specific authors who make a particular point they like, and then attempt to insert quotes making those points wherever they can, particularly the intro. Of course this article, being well-written, has resisted that, and simply states general principles in the lead, leaving the body of the article for relevant quotes. Jayjg (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
This article is FAR from being "well-written"...it is by far one of the most POV laden articles in all of Wikipedia, an excessive and laughable monstrosity if there ever was one (whatever happened to page length limits?). In short, this article is a disgrace to the project. In fact, one can't help to notice that something is horribly wrong with Wikipedia when an article on a non-subject such as the so-called "New antisemitism" is 3-4 times longer and better sourced than articles on other subjects that are a billion times more important (such as the Science article), or when scores of administrators obsess over this particular article and neglect to actually administrate and otherwise maintain the entire project. --172.150.23.75 06:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Jayjg, the argument of critic is not well-presented. They believe there is no "new antisemitism" because "There is no demand for the expulsion of the Jews, not even for specific anti-Jewish legislation, and in this respect too, there is a difference the present and the racialist antisemitism of the past." --Aminz 01:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
The arguments of the critics are extremely well represented, and the quote from Lewis adds nothing that is not already explained. The fact that New antisemitism differs from Racial or Religious antisemitism is a given; otherwise they'd be the same thing as each other. Jayjg (talk) 02:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Jay -the critics are well presented. I also don't know what Aminz means about "expulsion". The demand that the "colonialist" Jews be "removed" somehow is more or less "official". [26] <<-armon->> 03:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Jayjg, I am specifically refering to the summary presented in the intro (not the whole article) . It says "Critics of the concept argue that it serves to equate legitimate criticism of Israel with antisemitism, and that it is used to silence debate.", well critics of the concept don't agree that there is a new antisemitism in the first place because 1. Antisemitism and Anti-Zionism are two distinctly different tendencies that should not be confused. 2. There is no demand for the expulsion of the Jews, not even for specific anti-Jewish legislation 3. If this is antisemitism, they argue, there is as much, if not more, Islamophobia in the Western world, in Russia, and elsewhere." --Aminz 07:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Which of the "critics" listed in this article make which of the specific arguments you have listed, and where? Jayjg (talk) 21:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Jayjg, we have a reliable secondary source summerizing the views of those who say there is no "new antisemitism" without actually specifying their names. This is sufficient for inclusion in the intro. It is good to ask the author for his references in order to double check his statement but per WP:Attribution, The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true. --Aminz 22:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Which "reliable secondary source" are you referring to, and what do you think it says? Jayjg (talk) 16:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Just so you're aware, Aminz, we've been discussing the lead here for a couple months, and are currently deciding whether it is going to mediation. I believe that's why the page is currently locked down; in any case, we're waiting to hear on that from Slim and Jay, at which point we may be able to address the problems. Mackan79 22:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I have a reliable source summerizing the arguments of critics. Its addition shouldn't be controversial. --Aminz 01:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Not only is Walter Laqueur reliable, but Jayjg himself used him as a source in the Anti-Zionism article. But in his constant POV-pushing Jay won't hesitate to contradict himself. --Abenyosef 06:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Please abide by WP:CIVIL. Jayjg (talk) 16:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article: "Canadian anti-Semitism at an all-time high"

Article from The Jerusalem Post: "There were 935 reported incidents of anti-Semitism in Canada in 2006 - representing a 12.8 percent rise from the previous year, a four-fold increase over the past 10 years and an all-time high since counting began - according to figures released by the League for Human Rights of B'nai B'rith Canada."

Article continued here. --172.146.164.61 22:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

---

"Anti-Semitism on rise in Canada"

"Anti-Semitic activities in Canada have risen to their highest level in 25 years, according to a new report"..."Nearly half of the reported events occurred in Toronto, which is home to nearly half of Canada's 375,000 Jews. Another 25 percent occurred in Montreal, but there were incidents in almost every Canadian region."

--172.150.110.6 16:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "History" section

This section has a couple of fairly serious problems that will need to be addressed if and when mediation moves out of its deadlock of non-participation, and/or page protection is lifted.

The opening paragraph of the section –

An early use of the concept in close to its modern form was in the late 1940s, when the Soviet Union was accused of pursuing a "new anti-Semitism" against Jews, of the sort manifested in the so-called Doctors' plot, a supposed conspiracy by Jewish doctors to poison the Soviet leadership. [8] Stalinist opposition to "rootless cosmopolitans" – a euphemism for Jews – was rooted in the belief, as expressed by Klement Gottwald, that "treason and espionage infiltrate the ranks of the Communist Party. This channel is Zionism." [9]

– would seem to be, as has been pointed out, original research. No reliable source has been offered making the connection between this local phenomenon described generically in the 1940s as "a new anti-Semitism" and the subject of this article. This article's subject isn't the generic phrase "new antisemitism," but rather a form of antisemitism "coming from three political directions: the left, far-right, and Islamism"; it's a "term has entered common usage to refer to what some writers describe as a wave of antisemitism that escalated, particularly in Western Europe, after the Second Intifada in 2000, the failure of the Oslo accords, and the September 11, 2001 attacks."

Then there's the final three paragraphs of the "history" section, which are given over completely to what appear to be the self-published research findings of Chip Berlet in the 1990s. The term "new antisemitism" was not yet in widespread use in its modern sense, so it's perhaps unsurprising that Mr. Berlet never once uses it.

But we've now come to a point where the literature on NAS is extensive. Do any of the reliable sources who've written extensively on the topic as we've defined it trace either a) a historical genealogy that includes the Soviet phenomenon covered by Commentary in the 1940s, or b) a scholarly genealogy that includes the work of Chip Berlet in the 1990s?--G-Dett 18:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Antisemitism was traditionally seen as coming from the right. A post-war "New antisemitism" from the left (the Soviet Union) would clearly be an early sign of this new force. Why would you claim Chip Berlet was a "self-published source"? He's an analyst at Political Research Associates, a non-profit research group like many others. Jayjg (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I understand why you think this post-war Soviet phenomenon is "an early sign of this new force"; what I'm asking is which if any RSs agree with you.
Chip Berlet is the founder and primary researcher, writer, and editor of "Political Research Associates." There are apparently five other employees. How does this differ from Dailykos, RedState, Znet, etc.?--G-Dett 21:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
The Commentary article is about "New antisemitism", and it's about antisemitism from the left; so this this article. Regarding Political Research Associates, it was founded 26 years ago by Jean Hardisty, and is a 501(c)(3) organization. Chip Berlet has been an analyst there since it was founded. Jayjg (talk) 22:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
There clearly is an important story to be told about Soviet attitudes to Judaism that needs to be better reflected in the encyclopedia. Can I suggest that the first thing to do is to get more material from the historians that all agree are reliable? And that the best place to develop the story in the first instance is not here but in History of antisemitism? After that story is properly told, then we could see if there is sufficient reliable material to address the question of whether Soviet antisemitism can or cannot be counted as "new antisemitism". My guess is there isn't: that authors have found enough to say about the Soviet world, its ideas and their effects without having time left over to quibble over whether the epithet "new" applies or not. Itsmejudith 00:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm splitting this section on original research into two subsections, one on 1940s Soviet antisemitism and the other on Chip Berlet.

[edit] 1940s Soviet Antisemitism as "an early use of the concept in close to its modern form"

Jay, if it's self-evident that the 1940s Soviet phenomenon was clearly "an early sign of this new force," then why have none of the reliable sources, scholars and experts, etc., pointed this out? Or have they?

If I find a reference in the Israeli press in, say, the mid-1960s, to "the new historians," naming a batch of up-and-coming scholars at that time (not Morris, Pappe, et al), is that generic phrase ("new historians") enough for me to cite the reference as "an early example of this school of historical revisionism in close to its modern form"?

There are instances of the word "postmodern" and "postmodernism" as early as the 1940s, meaning after the high point of the literary movement known as modernism. Writers and experts on postmodernism do not trace the contemporary concept known by that name to these early uses of the phrase. If a Wikipedian did, it'd be original research, no?

The same applies to New Historicism, French New Wave cinema, etc. Surely there are articles that could be dug up using these generic phrases before the 1980s and the 1960s, respectively. Would such articles constitute "early uses of the concepts in close to their modern form"? No. Unless a reliable source said they did.--G-Dett 00:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg writes: "The Commentary article is about "New antisemitism", and it's about antisemitism from the left; so this this [sic] article."
This is, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the most preposterous justification I've seen for the retention of the Commentary piece within our article. The 1949 article outlines the rise of a "new antisemitism" in the sense of a mutation within Soviet antisemitism from the 1930s to the 1940s. It has nothing whatever to do with the modern concept, notwithstanding the coincidence of a shared terminology.
Despite Jay's near-assertion to the contrary, moreover, our encyclopedia entry is not about "antisemitism from the left" (we don't even define it as such in the introduction, for heaven's sake). It's true, of course, that certain editors have tried to define "new antisemitism" as a 'left-wing phenomenon', and have on occasion used the "history" section to construct an OR-drenched narrative maligning the Left in general as anti-Semitic. This is not, however, something that we should be encouraging.
I would submit that certain editors are supporting the retention of a transparently irrelevant paragraph for equally transparent partisan ends. This is just another reason why we need a comprehensive mediation for this page as soon as possible.
I apologize if my language is a tad less subtle than usual. I simply cannot believe that Jay expects anyone to take his latest justification seriously. CJCurrie 01:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stalin

Stalin's "anti-Rootless-Cosmopolitan policy" was thinly veiled to the degree of ostentatiously avoiding using the actual word "Jew" (something which fooled nobody at the time), but in other respects it was in fact a precursor of modern New Antisemitism in certain respects -- such as being a critique of modern Jewish social life and political activities from an ostensibly "left-wing" non-religious purely political point of view, without reference to race or overtly religious criticism. It certainly foreshadowed (indirectly) the Soviet-Arab-Muslim alliance in the United Nations which spearheaded Resolution 3379. -- AnonMoos 04:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

As has been pointed, the work on New Antisemitism, both scholarly and journalistic, is substantial. Does any of it talk about this foreshadowing? Does any of it point to this Soviet phenomenon as a precursor?--G-Dett 12:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request by CJC for adding dispute template

I received this message on my Talk page from CJC:

Talks concerning mediation seem to have become stalled. Would you consider lifting page protection, such that we may add templates to the article page that indicate the existence of ongoing disputes? CJCurrie 01:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone here have any problem with that? My own suggestion would be for you all to decide on the template and let me insert it for you, as opposed to just removing protection, as the latter may lead to the same edit warring that resulted in the protection. Is there a reason why mediation efforts are stalled? Crum375 02:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Crum375's suggestion seems reasonable. I would begin by recommending the insertion of a "dubious" template after the following paragraph:

An early use of the concept in close to its modern form was in the late 1940s, when the Soviet Union was accused of pursuing a "new anti-Semitism" against Jews, of the sort manifested in the so-called Doctors' plot, a supposed conspiracy by Jewish doctors to poison the Soviet leadership. [8] Stalinist opposition to "rootless cosmopolitans" – a euphemism for Jews – was rooted in the belief, as expressed by Klement Gottwald, that "treason and espionage infiltrate the ranks of the Communist Party. This channel is Zionism." [9]

My position is that this paragraph is (i) inaccurate, and (ii) unrelated to the subject of the article. Others have disagreed. CJCurrie 03:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I would much rather, if we have to, use a single template saying there is a dispute vs. having many of them all over the place, as that tend to disfigure the article. I was hoping to do that, if needed, once mediation is underway. Is there consensus here about adding the templates (either a single or multiple)? And I am still waiting to hear why mediation is stalled - is there any way to move it forward? Crum375 03:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

A "TotallyDisputed" notice would probably be appropriate, given the depth of disagreement that exists here. (I'd also accept a "Disputed-section" notice for the history section, if the former suggestion meets opposition.) However, I cannot understand why highlighting statements identified by some as "dubious" would constitute "disfiguring the article". SlimVirgin has also used that wording recently, but I rather think that inaccurate and irrelevant information is more of a "disfigurement" than is a template notice.

To answer your second question: my "side" has brought forward a proposal, and the other side has not yet responded. This is sadly consistent with recent patterns of delay. (I'll make no comment on whether or not this is a deliberate strategy.) CJCurrie 04:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'd like to hear from the other 'side' (I am assuming there are only 2?) on the template issue as well as the reason(s) for the mediation process being stalled. Crum375 04:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
If the other side doesn't respond soon, can we move forward with the templates? CJCurrie 07:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I've said I'm happy with mediation and I made a proposal about that, but I got no response. I won't enter into mediation with Mackan or G-Dett. Otherwise, I'm very willing to do so. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
For the detailed response Slim claims not to have received, see "Moving Forward on Formal Mediation" above, as well as the last four posts under "CJCurrie's Response." We've tried very hard to accommodate her various needs, stated and implied, regarding the mediation framework. We've agreed, as per her request, to limit participants on each side to two, and I've voluntarily recused myself from the process, in anticipation of her personal objections to me and implied refusal to engage with me (except through edit wars). Our various concessions are all posted above, in the stated sections.
I can't speak for Mackan and CJ, but I don't see a compelling reason to bow in further submission to Slim's increasingly whimsical demands. For her to emerge now from a week of silence and stonewalling, falsely claim to have received "no response" to her demands, each of which in fact has been met, and then top them off with a new demand that she able to choose the negotiators for our side as well as hers – seems to me to cross a redline of acceptable behavior. If CJ and Mackan disagree, I'll defer to them. I've already recused myself from participation in mediation, and if Mackan is now willing to do so as well in an attempt to placate Slim, notwithstanding her still-unexplained smear-and-slime campaign against him last week, then I will go along. My own inclination is to recognize that this has become an intractable behavioral issue as well as a challenging content dispute; and accordingly to consider taking it to arbitration.--G-Dett 15:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
As a curious observer (and former partaker in the debates here), I must say I would like to hear why Slim and Jay did not at all seem interested in the informal mediation that was started by Mel Etitis. They expressed interest in the mediation, like slimvirgin is doing now, but did not at all participate when it started. As I'm a newbie to WP in many ways, I may have misunderstood something, but it seemed very strange, and also like a waste of Mel Etitis' time. pertn 19:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree with G-Dett. Slim, I can simply say you're limiting our choices here, with arbcom increasingly seeming to be the only solution. I'd rather avoid it, which I think will only further escalate the various personal issues here, but I don't see another option. As G-Dett notes, our side has indeed presented two options, which cede an incredible amount of ground. In any case, I can't sit out based on an unexplained personal grudge. I think our offer to let G-Dett sit out really goes much too far already, considering the volume and quality of her work toward resolving the disputes on this page.
In any case, I guess I can only agree with G-Dett in adding a third option here, of taking the issue to arbitration. Is this what we want? I'll currently support this solution, for whatever it can offer. Mackan79 19:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Failed: Stability issues

Based on the lack of stability the article shows, including a recent lock due to edit warring, I am going to have to fail the GA nomination for now: Please make the improvements I noted above, hammer out your differences, and once a stable verison has been established, please feel free to renominate. If you have any questions, please see me at my talk page. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for unblock

The article has been blocked for two weeks. Can we unblock it? I have some stuff to add (Please see the "New Antisemitism intro" section above) --Aminz 08:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

As we are in a process of trying to resolve some deep seated disputes, with possible mediation and even arbitration, I think it makes sense to sit tight protection-wise for a little while longer and see how events unfold. Crum375 19:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll make no comment on whether or not protection should be lifted, but I will reiterate my request that disputed templates be added to the article. There are currently several serious content disputes taking place on this page, but the article in its present state gives no indication of this. CJCurrie 00:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I think we addressed the unblock request in a different section above. I would prefer to have a single one at the top, if possible. Can we agree on one of these? Crum375 01:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
My understanding is that the current disputes (re: the introduction, the Commentary paragraph, etc.) centre around questions of factual accuracy. I'm not certain there are active NPOV disputes, though I could be mistaken. For now, I'd propose a "Disputed" template.
Btw, I don't believe that the consent of all parties is required to insert a "disputed" template (especially given that some parties seem inclined to understate both the nature and extent of the current disputes). I'm willing to wait for others to bring forward their suggestions, but I don't believe that unanimity is required on this point. CJCurrie 03:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd be fine with CJ's suggestion. Otherwise, a general NPOV banner at the top might be best. Considering the extent of the issues, particularly regarding the very definition in the lead, that would seem appropriate to me. Mackan79 04:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
If NPOV concerns are an issue, then a "TotallyDisputed" notice would probably be in order. CJCurrie 04:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't see all of your comment. Yes, well, I'd consider the issues regarding the lead a NPOV issue, as well as the issues in the history section, though of course other policies are implicated as well. I'd suggest the NPOV banner would get the point across, but I'm fine with a more specific banner also. Mackan79 04:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I have a piece of sourced material which I would like to add. It is critic's argument that: There is no new antisemitism because 1. Antisemitism and Anti-Zionism are two distinctly different tendencies that should not be confused. 2. There is no demand for the expulsion of the Jews, not even for specific anti-Jewish legislation 3. If this is antisemitism, they argue, there is as much, if not more, Islamophobia in the Western world, in Russia, and elsewhere."
That's all I want. My source is "The changing face of antisemitism" by Walter Laqueur, Oxford University Press, p.5" If anybody agrees with me on these points, maybe I can ask an admin to add that for me. Cheers, --Aminz 09:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
That's funny. Laqueur's book opens with a lengthy chapter on New antisemitism. Laquer himself supports the coincept and has his own vision of the New antisemitism. Nevertheless, you've chosen to use his book as a source for the arguments of critics, whose direct speech is well-represented in the article. Is it because you didn't finds anything on Laqueur's vision of the concept in The changing face of antisemitism or because you didn't look for his views, only for criticism? Beit Or 12:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
As per Beit Or. You seem to have completely inverted the thrust of Laqueur's book. Jayjg (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Laquer presents the arguments of himself and that of critics. A section can be dedicated to his ideas. But as for the critics ideas, he has summerized them and we can use his summary. --Aminz 20:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
People's views must be presented directly rather filtered through the eyes of their adversaries. You didn't answer the question why you have insisted on citing Laqueur only for the views of critics rather than for his own views. In other words, why did you attempt to hide his support for the concept from the reades until your trick was exposed? Beit Or 20:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
As I said before, a section can be written based on Laquer's ideas of new-antisemtisim. That would be his thoughts. On the other hand, he has provided a summary of the views of critics. That summary can be used in the intro (again as I said before I am concerned with the intro at the moment and the intro is supposed to summerize the views of different scholars rather than emphasize the view of one of them). The intro as of now provides the following summary regarding the views of proponents: "Proponents of the concept argue that anti-Zionism, anti-Americanism, anti-globalization, third worldism, and opposition to the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish homeland may be coupled with antisemitism or may constitute disguised antisemitism." If you think Laquer adds something more to this, feel free to add it. As far as I remember his main point was applying double standards, same as what Lewis said. If there is anything else, we can add that as well. --Aminz 20:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Is there any disagreement with the factuality of the summary he has provided? --Aminz 20:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rampant Antisemitism in Illinois?

ARTICLE: "ADL Decries Anti-Semitic Vandalism of Alderman's Office"

"The incident comes one week after the release of ADL's 2006 Audit of Anti-Semitic Incidents, which showed that anti-Semitic incidents in Illinois nearly doubled last year." -- "We are very concerned about the increasing willingness of some in our community to engage in anti-Semitic harassment and vandalism, as shown in the near doubling of such incidents in Illinois last year."

--172.150.110.6 16:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

---

"March 14, 2007 ... Anti-Semitic incidents in Illinois nearly doubled in 2006 but declined nationally for a second consecutive year, according to newly issues statistics from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which tracks incidents against Jewish individuals, synagogues and community institutions."

--172.150.110.6 16:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Using the numbers from this article, the 2006 per capita incidence of "anti-semitic incidents" in Illinois is lower than the national average. I don't think that can be characterized as "rampant."

76.29.2.23 04:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Anti-Semitic Incidents in U.S. Decline in 2006..."

"March 14, 2007 … Anti-Semitic incidents in the United States declined for the second consecutive year in 2006, according to newly issued statistics from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which tracks incidents against Jewish individuals, synagogues and community institutions.

The League's annual Audit of Anti-Semitic Incidents, issued today, counted a total of 1,554 anti-Semitic incidents across the United States in 2006, representing a 12 percent decline from 1,757 reported in 2005."

So, the consensus (according to the ADL) seems to be that antisemitic incidents are DOWN in the U.S. (except in Illionis and a few other places), but UP just about everywhere else in the world. This just doesn't seem right...but I suppose that we have to take the ADL's word for it.
Makes perfect sense to me. Since 9-11 and especially the invasion of Iraq, US citizens have been bombarded with pro-Israeli propaganda. The rest of the world sees US military operations for what they really are: a war for oil and a war for Israel.

--172.150.110.6 16:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorted contributions to main article

Just in case this is of use to people trying to decide how to pick representatives for mediation, I have calculated the following statistics on the contributions to NAS:

Top 30 contributors
955 SlimVirgin
207 Jayjg
201 CJCurrie
74 Jmabel
67 Formeruser-82
66 Viriditas
53 Aminz
51 Humus_sapiens
42 Leifern
30 Netscott
30 MathKnight
26 Stevertigo
24 Deeceevoice
23 Marcoo
23 Liftarn
22 LevelCheck
21 TreveX
21 RK
21 Nagle
21 Christiaan
20 G-Dett
19 Itsmejudith
18 Leflyman
18 Jpgordon
17 Deodar
17 Chamaeleon
16 Pertn
16 KimvdLinde
15 Moshe_Constantine_Hassan_Al-Silverburg
15 Denis_Diderot

3073 total edits
Created on 23:15, May 23, 2004
Recent edits - top 24 contributors from November 19, 2006 (5 or more edits)
104 SlimVirgin
43 Aminz
27 CJCurrie
19 Jayjg
19 G-Dett
15 Beit_Or
11 Nlsanand
11 Mackan79
11 Itsmejudith
10 Armon
9 Ashley_Y
8 Abenyosef
7 Moshe_Constantine_Hassan_Al-Silverburg
6 Netscott
6 Lyberry
6 DeanHinnen
5 WassermannNYC
5 Liftarn
5 Leifern
5 Isarig
5 Catchpole
5 68.102.204.171
5 172.165.253.28
5 142.151.175.39

499 total edits
Since 07:32, November 19, 2006

(Revised, added complete history since creation. Crum375 01:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC))

I welcome validation of my numbers. Crum375 18:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Crum375, your numbers do suggest the possibility of having Aminz be one of the negotiators for our side, in lieu of Mackan whom Slim is now refusing to work with. I have misgivings about this solution for several reasons, which may easily be guessed, but I have no doubt that Aminz would be great as a negotiator, and this may be a way forward. On the other hand, even a successful mediation may only be a stopgap before the next meltdown if we don't address the admin behavioral issues that have plagued this page for the past few months.--G-Dett 20:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
With respect, Crum375, your numbers are inaccurate -- or, rather, they don't represent the total number of contributions to the article. You've tabulated the total number of contributions since 19 November 2006, but both the article's history and its battle lines date back much earlier.
With regard to G-Dett's remarks, I would agree that behavioural issues are as much a part of our current dilemma as are the ongoing content disputes. Since the current "negotiations toward mediation" began a few weeks ago, SlimVirgin has insulted and smeared rival editors, used dubious arguments to seek the exclusion of opponents from the mediation process, and ignored several suggestions and counter-proposals. Such actions are, to risk understatement, not generally associated with people negotiating in good faith. There are longstanding WP:OWN issues with SlimVirgin's behaviour on this page, and her recent actions have done little to dispel these concerns.
G-Dett's suggestion that Aminz be appointed a "negotiator" goes directly to the problem with SlimVirgin's proposed "mediation". I have no objection to Aminz taking part in these discussions, but I don't think he'd be an effective representative for either my "side" or SlimVirgin's "side" -- his arguments have come from a different direction entirely. Of course, in a fair mediation process, we'd be able to integrate several different perspectives at once; under Slim's proposed idea, we wouldn't.
My own views on SlimVirgin's proposal are unchanged from my first comments: I think it's a bad idea, but will participate if others want to move forward in this way. I certainly believe that we should do something to move this process forward, as the current stalling only benefits those favouring the status quo version of the page. CJCurrie 00:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
CJC, it is certainly possible that my numbers are wrong, but this is where I got them. As I noted above, the creation date/time was on 23:15, May 23, 2004. Where did you see the '19 November 2006' date? Crum375 00:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, I see what you mean. I do have a mistake somewhere in the start date, I'll update soon. Crum375 00:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I found my mistake, and added the full version going back 3073 edits. Sorry for the confusion. Again please double check me. I guess I won't get paid for this. ;^) Crum375 01:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I think CJCurrie sums up my position very well. Regarding G-Dett's suggestion, I think it simply comes down to what we want this mediation to accomplish. If this is just one more attempt to produce something that might satisfy all parties, I'd generally try just about anything. My understanding is that this is meant as a fairly comprehensive resolution for the article. In that regard, I have a few opinions: 1. I think recent editors, in any mediation, are much better equipped to discuss the issues than past editors. 2. I don't think one side of a mediation should pick or exert pressure on who gets to participate on the other side, without very clear, strong, and articulated bases for doing so, and 3. I think mediation can really only be binding on people who actually participate or willingly defer. As such, I have a hard time seeing how such a partial mediation will help the situation.
I'm really with CJ here that this entire proposal is very borderline. While Slim is right, of course, that nobody can be compelled to participate in mediation, I think she also somewhat misses the whole point, to place a mediator between the disputing parties to listen to both sides, validate positions, and try to find a way forward. The point is not a means to pressure out certain voices in order to create false stability.
Ultimately, I think it's worth bringing up Mel's comment upon reviewing the situation a month ago, that "I think that it's clear that it's a genuine dispute, not a clash between the forces of truth and goodness against those of falsehood and evil. Perhaps the first stage of calming down the dispute would be for those involved to go into the history of the article, look at their own edits, and try to see them from a neutral point of view." If we could get back to that point, I think it would really benefit the whole situation. In any case, if Slim will agree to a mediation led by CJCurrie and myself, while the two of us bring in the positions of other editors, I'll go along with the proposal, despite my strong disagreement with the format. If not, I think we have a situation where good faith editors are inappropriately being prevented from discussing and editing a page. Either way, I agree with CJCurrie that this really needs to move forward. Mackan79 03:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Talk page is meant to discuss changes to the article rather than set personal scores. I suggest that you commend SlimVirgin for all the hard work she has invested into this article. Beit Or 12:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

CJ and Mackan both raise important objections to Slim's latest demands for the mediation format. It is important that our representatives indeed represent us, and by the same token there's no good reason for excluding from the process those who don't represent either "side," but come from a different angle altogether.

I am beginning to wonder, however, if even discussing the wisdom, fairness, and rationale of Slim's evolving set of demands – much less making further concessions to them – isn't beside the point. I don't see how a successful mediation can result from a process that a key editor has to be dragged into kicking and screaming. Slim says "mediation is voluntary and no one can be forced into it," and she's right. The whole process of mediation, formal and informal, is vulnerable to sabotage at any point along the way; we saw this when Mel was officiating (so to speak), and the groom (Mackan) was left standing at the alter. Everyone's patience, mental resources, and overall faith in the project is depleted by these stunts. Mediation can successfully resolve an impasse between editors with deeply divided views, provided there is a unanimous will for it to succeed. It just isn't clear to me that we have that in this case.

I don't mean to sound a hopeless note. If Slim comes round to accepting one of the various conciliatory proposals made to her, that would be great. We could even try unprotecting the page, and hope that the collective will not to return to such an unpleasant pass would be enough to ensure a fresh start and reasonable, civil, sustained collaboration. Barring that, there are other options, tedious as they may be. But I just don't see the wisdom of continuing negotiations over the mediation format, because we've come to a point where they seem wilfully frivolous.--G-Dett 14:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Totally disputed tag

I have added the tag for now, as it seems to me that one side is insisting on it. I personally think it is ugly, and along with the protection status represents a failure to find the correct middle ground. Please try to work out your differences ASAP and reach a mutually acceptable version, realizing that in a contentious situation no one is going to be totally happy, but 'grudging acceptance' should be possible. Crum375 12:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Please remove the tag immediately. Either this page is protected or it isn't. --Leifern 12:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll remove it if anyone can show me where it is against policy to indicate the disputed status while the page is protected. Alternatively, I will gladly yield this page to any other admin who wants to take over. Crum375 15:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
It's protected due to a content dispute. I can't see why acknowledging the existence of a dispute would case trouble. CJCurrie 15:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that if a page is protected, it's frozen at a (hopefully) arbitrary state to let things cool down, as if it were quarantined. The dispute can be over one intractable detail, or the existence of the article. The totally disputed tag passes judgment on the nature of the dispute and poisons the well for readers who are interested in the topic. It seems pretty self-evident to me that slapping a tag like this on it amounts to weighing in on the content dispute itself and is therefore in violation of policy on these matters. --Leifern 16:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with CJCurrie here. I don't see how indicating that there is a dispute among editors, which is clearly an undisputed fact, passes judgment on the article's content. And as I noted above, I will be happy to let another admin rule on this and reverse me, if s/he wants to take over monitoring this page. Crum375 16:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
CJCurrie, you may have noticed, has an interest in how this article is presented. It comes across clearly from the fact that it's locked that it's controversial. --Leifern 20:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
The point isn't that it's controversial, but that material is disputed. This is for readers, also, who won't know the article is locked or why. You may disagree, but I think this was exactly how it's supposed to happen, if there's a dispute when the page gets locked down, particularly for an extended period: editors can petition the locking admin to put up a banner noting the content dispute. Please recognize that this is a compromise, between locking down a version that favors certain editors, but then acknowledging the dispute for the others. I don't think anybody is satisfied with the current situation. Mackan79 20:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

I've e-mailed SlimVirgin, and she's agreed to mediation. However, neither of us is clear any more on what exactly, if anything, needs to be mediated. Can someone please explain that? Jayjg (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should make a list. For my part, I've been approaching various paragraphs in a piecemeal manner, and finding that I'm being met with resistence at each step of the way. CJCurrie 15:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Ironically, I thought we were actually very close to resolving the lead before the recent lockdown, which I tried to implement here. That was a further compromise; the longer proposal was discussed here. Slim's last reversion was on the basis that I had deleted a source, but this was actually mistaken, as I had only moved them as was necessary. If we could simply agree to the lead, then, that would actually resolve my major issue with the article, and possibly even one major need for the mediation.
At the same time, CJ has outstanding issues regarding the history section and OR, which I also share. Other issues include our previous discussions on the "Responses" section, which were also put on hold.
Those are the major ones I'm aware of. I should say I'm also with G-Dett that opening the page is one solution, if self-mediation seems possible. If people think mediation is necessary, though, I think that's also certainly merited at this point. Either way suits me. I see CJCurrie's response now, and drawing up a list seems like a good idea, if there are things I missed, or to be more specific. Mackan79 15:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
A list would be helpful; I don't recall there being huge issues around the final version of the proposed lead. Jayjg (talk) 16:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
A glance through the talk page archives suggests that at least several mediations have taken place about this article in the recent past. Isn't it going to be one mediation too many? Beit Or 17:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, there has only been one mediation, in May/June of 2006. The last attempt in February stalled. Needless to say, I think a lot has happened in the last 10 months, which several of us think needs some sort of pro-active resolution whether mediation or otherwise. Mackan79 22:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll start the process of a list below. Ideally, then others can add their issues, so we can look and determine for what mediation is ultimately necessary. I'm starting broadly, but people could divide them more specifically if they prefer. If we can resolve some issues without mediation, all the better. Mackan79 22:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation Issues

  1. The lead, per discussion here.
  2. The history section and issues of original research, including discussions of Flannery here and 1949 Commentary article here.
  3. The "Responses" section and issues of attribution/NPOV, with discussions at various times (possibly mostly resolved).

Comments welcome below. Mackan79 22:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand 2; one set of editors feels the material should be included, a second set feels it should not. I'm not sure that there is much debate about the lead, though; what do you feel the two options are? Also, can you be more specific about 3 please? Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 22:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
(Edit conflict with CJ.) If we can resolve the lead without mediation, that would be great. Regarding 2, I think the issue is more complex (or at least that the solution will need to be), but I think you're right that's the main issue. As to 3, I imagine that's not something we'll want to mediate, but I mentioned it simply because it's one issue that has been raised previously (issues with that section generally). If we're leaving certain issues out of the mediation, though, that might be worth noting as well. Seeing CJ's comment now, I think those are also issues relating to #3 we might address. Mackan79 22:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we could add these two concerns, which are still unresolved from past discussions:

  1. Should recent documents like the Independent Jewish Voices manifesto be mentioned in this article? (refer: [27])
  2. Should the debates concerning "Progressive Jewish Thought and the New anti-semitism" be added to the article? CJCurrie 22:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Here are a couple of issues:

a) The British all-party inquiry has been responded to, among others by Norman Finkelstein. When I raised this, SV, in a private message, told me that quoting that response would be "too much Finkelstein." Shouldn't any of the responses to the inquiry be mentioned?

b) The EUMC's findings have been responded to as well, in this case by the European Jews for a Just Peace. Again, shouldn't this be mentioned.

c) Is Michael Rosen a quotable source?

d) Isn't the reference to the Magen David Adom's longtime delayed admission into the Red Cross too lopsided? It is not an example of New Antisemitism (the Star of David was first rejected in 1931), it is not even an example of antisemitism (Hindu symbols were rejected as well), it was always a problem of changing the status quo, and, moreover, the status quo was finally changed in 2006 with the adoption of the neutral Red Crystal and the full admission of Magen David Adom into the Movement. At the very least we should mention this latter fact, lest our readers get misinformed. --Abenyosef 23:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding 3). I think the responses section needs to be altered. -It is quite unclear what the responses are really are responses to. If they are responses to the new concept, I belive a key element here would be critzism and groups like independent jewish voices. The way it is structured now, it seems that general empirical evidence of contemporary antisemitism and reactions to this is included as "evidence" of NAS in the responses section, even though there is hardly any evidence or reason to attribute the instances to NAS. (For instance: statistics of antisemitic attacks, where the perpetrator is not known. Isn't the change of typical perpetrator one of the key issues here?) Thus, to include the material in this way is really OR, since one uses material that is not explicitly about NAS and interprets it as evidence or "responses" to NAS. Wheter it is responses to the concept or the phenomenon noone really knows, it seems. pertn 08:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

To all, but AbenYosef particularly, can you point us to the discussions of these issues? I've tried to find those I could. My inclination would be that we would only mediate issues that have deadlocked before, although we could of course agree to resolve other matters as well. I have a concern already with CJ and me trying to advocate all of these issues, but perhaps that can be addressed. I've started a master list below. Mackan79 13:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Master List of Possible Issues

  1. The lead, per discussion here.
  2. The history section and issues of original research, including discussions of Flannery here and 1949 Commentary article here.
  3. The "Responses" section and issues of accurately reflecting sources, with discussions at various times (possibly mostly resolved).
  4. The title of that section and framing issues therein, discussed here.
  5. Inclusion of recent documents like the Independent Jewish Voices manifesto, per discussion here.
  6. Should the debates concerning "Progressive Jewish Thought and the New anti-semitism" be added to the article?
  7. Inclusion of Finkelstein response to British All-Party Parliamentary inquiry. (Relating to this edit, I believe).
  8. Inclusion of response to EUMC by European Jews for a Just Peace and others.
  9. Michael Rosen as a reliable source.
  10. Reference to Magen David Adom.

Adjustments welcome above, comments welcome below. Mackan79 13:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Rosen and the Magen David Adom were discussed on already archived Talk pages, and I'm afraid I haven't kept track of them. In any event, it is my belief that a mediation can be taken advantage of to decide certain points even if not previously discussed, so that we won't have to quarrel over them in the future.
Here's an example: if I first read this article I would be stunned not to find any reference to a very frequent argument made by opponents of the NAS concept, namely that Israelis who claim Israel intentionally targets civilians, call it an Apartheid state, etc. (e.g. Shulamit Aloni) are not called New Antisemites, even if they follow the pattern of "demonization," "singling out Israel for criticism," etc., frequently cited as the NAS modus operandi. NAS opponents claim that Diasporic Jews are scandalized by criticism of Israel that is not only naturally accepted but also proffered by Israelis themselves. Shouldn't this be reflected in the article?--Abenyosef 23:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changed template to 'protected'

Having thought about this issue some more, I believe that a better approach is to use the 'protected' template, rather than the 'totally disputed' (TD) one. This is because I can see how one could construe the TD template to imply that WP itself is saying that there are neutrality and/or sourcing issues with the entry, whereas WP prefers to take no position in this dispute. By using the 'protected' template, we are simply telling the reader that article is protected due to ongoing disputes among editors, and that the protection is not an endorsement of the protected version. It seems to me that this is a much better and more neutral way to proceed as long as the entry is protected, and in my opinion it clearly conveys the present status in a way that doesn't favor any side. As always, any other admin can overrule me on this. Crum375 02:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The message of the banner is that there's a neutrality dispute, though, not that the article has been determined by concensus to be biased. In fact, I think this is exactly the situation where such a banner is intended. I'm generally fine as long as mediation moves forward, but I think at least the "NPOV" banner is justified, which simply says, "The neutrality of this article is disputed." If two active editors request it, is that not sufficient? I'm not sure where else the banner would be used. Mackan79 04:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
My concern is that in principle, every single contentious entry on WP could get a neutrality template, because you'd always find a couple of editors on one side who dislike the current compromise version. So obviously we can't just use the disputed neutrality by some editors as a sole criterion for the neutrality template's inclusion. In this case, since the entry is frozen, I now feel that WP's endorsing the neutrality dispute template would be improper, while just stating that there is an edit dispute and the entry is protected until it gets resolved, and that protection does not endorse the protected version, is an accurate way to describe the current situation. Crum375 13:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] G-Dett's suggestions for mediation and/or general future editing of the article

I agree that if CJ and Mackan will be representing our "side," then the list of mediated issues needs to be restricted. Otherwise their task will become impossible to perform and inevitably thankless. In light of the depth and frequency of disputes, on the other hand, the idea of comprehensive mediation has been proposed several times. It's an attractive idea in some ways but would only make sense if all who wished to were allowed to participate.

The immediate issues that have produced impasse are the "History" section, the IJV, and the lead. Jay is right that significant progress has been made on the lead. Perhaps that won't require mediation. In the end, I would want a lead that makes very clear at the outset the centrality of the concept of "disproportionate" political criticism of Israel to the definition of NAS, as that appears to be our default definition determining what material is properly relevant to the article.

I have several other issues, major and minor, with the article in its current form. I'm not saying any of them should be added to the list of issues for mediation. I just want to give a sense of what I'm going to press for when the article reopens; if these resonate with other editors, they may shape the mediation process even if they aren't themselves foregrounded.

1. Three substantial paragraphs on research by Chip Berlet (who never once mentions "new antisemitism") in the "History" section strikes me as much too much. I thank Jay for correcting me as to who the founder of Political Research Associates is, but I still don't see how what they do differs from DailyKos, Znet, or any other kind of self-published, largely web-based research-activism. I know that some of their work (not the stuff we're citing) has been published by the same outfit that publishes Chomsky's political writings (South End Press), but the majority of it seems to be posted on PRA's website, sent out in newsletters, etc. Can someone provide a measure or objective indication of their stature and influence? Are Berlet's findings cited by or incorporated into any of the work done by experts on NAS? At the very least, it seems to me that Berlet's arguments (that concrete attempts by right-wing extremist groups to reach out to the left in the 1990s have resulted in a shared political vocabulary) are too idiosyncratic to be included in the "History" section, especially if none of the scholars of NAS are citing them. If self-published investigative reporting is not picked up on, referred to, or made use of by any major authorities on a given topic, then I wonder why it should figure so centrally and, as it were, uncontroversially, in a Wikipedia article on that topic. If we are going to insist nevertheless on keeping the paragraphs on Berlet in their entirety (all three of them), perhaps they'd find a more natural home in the "political directions" section.

2. Jay and others have stressed that they want the best authorities cited for this article, meaning scholars and other experts wherever possible. A very reasonable-sounding proposition. The result of this logic, however, is that we downplay the very writers that have done the most to codify the term "new antisemitism": Phyllis Chesler, Abraham Foxman, Alan Dershowitz, et al. Whatever their faults, these writers have given the term NAS its currency, not only among laymen but among the authorities that we do quote. It's very odd to me, for example, that our section on "arguments for and against the concept" begins with U Penn professor Jack Fischel – not, however, contributing his own research to the topic but rather reviewing a "spate of books" by none other than Chesler, Foxman, and Dershowitz. It sometimes seems like the net effect of going the long way around the popular (and perhaps somewhat demagogic) writers, striving to quote university professors in relevant areas (while neglecting to mention that these scholars are themselves reviewing or discussing the concepts of the popular writers we largely ignore), together with the aforementioned original-research-upholstery padding out the furnishings of our "history" section, is to artificially shore up and burnish the scholarly and historical pedigree of what seems to be in many – admittedly not all – ways a popular, journalistic, and contemporary concept.

3. At the same time that we're throwing academic robes over everything, we seem to be surreptitiously indulging a kind of core sensationalism. So that we quote Mark Strauss writing, after all, in a serious and very well-respected journal (Foreign Policy), but instead of summarizing the interesting and subtle argument he makes about the role of globalization in creating the conditions for the "new antisemitism" in the 1990s, we quote the following: "the [NAS] is the medieval image of the 'Christ-killing' Jew resurrected on the editorial pages of cosmopolitan European newspapers. It is the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement refusing to put the Star of David on their ambulances ... It is neo-Nazis donning checkered Palestinian kaffiyehs and Palestinians lining up to buy copies of Mein Kampf." This line is a throwaway. It's an establishing shot, a rhetorically colorful lead-in. It has nothing to do with his argument. There is no point – no point at all – in our searching out the best authorities, scholars, etc. etc. for our article if we're just going to mine their work for nuggets of pamphlet-ready rhetoric.

4. The structure of the article might be worth reconsidering. The four principle sections (history, arguments pro/con, political directions, and responses) make sense in the abstract; in practice they encourage bloat and create not so much a readable article as a kind of indexed system of cross-references, where the same material is revisited again and again and looked at through different lenses. The British All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry, for example, is discussed in detail in four different sections. There seem to be endless subdivisions, and some of these are very confusing. For example, the "arguments for and against" section includes two subsections which would appear to any normal reader to form a chronological sequence: "The Third Wave" and "The Fourth Wave since 1945." But these "waves" are not sequential, and in fact are extracted from historical timelines having nothing at all to do with one another. Lewis's waves begin with the advent of Christianity, and each spans epochs of several centuries. Bauer's waves begin after World War II, and last anywhere from 5 to 14 years. Lewis, in other words, is talking about evolutions through the millenia, the history of antisemitism in its (metaphorical) geological time; Bauer on the other hand is talking about a set of shifts hinging on current events. Why do we present these two systems of historical scale in such copious detail? Why do we throw the reader so deep in the weeds, and confuse him further by foregrounding an inconsequential coincidence – that both Bauer and Lewis use the metaphor of "waves"? Surely this material could be radically collapsed, perhaps into a revamped and cleaned-up history section; we could tell the reader that some scholarship of NAS focuses on its roots in centuries of classical antisemitism, while other work tends to anchor the phenomenon in contemporary history; we then briefly cite Lewis and Bauer, and give a couple of good quotes or examples.

Speaking of streamlining, I don't see a compelling reason for separate sections on "Criticism of Israel is not necessarily antisemitism" and "A contradictory political ploy." The second argument (largely associated with Finkelstein) is simply a stronger version and more provocative extrapolation of the first argument.

Those are the major directions I'd like to see further editing of the article take. What follows are some minor issues of the sort that we should be in theory (but aren't always in fact) easy to resolve without weeks spent in the trenches of bitter edit wars.

a. This sentence – "That there has been a resurgence of antisemitic attacks and attitudes is accepted by most opponents of the concept of new antisemitism" – is sourced, bizarrely, to Norman Finkelstein, who doesn't believe it. The footnote opens by stating explicitly that Finkelstein doesn't believe it. It's not entirely clear what's going on here, but it looks like the whole lengthy footnote is engineered for the purposes of making Finkelstein look foolish, by quoting him saying something about Laqueur's work that Laqueur himself then seems to contradict. But what on earth is this elaborate OR mousetrap set-piece doing masquerading as a footnote supporting a statement it in fact contradicts?

b. The section on "the left and anti-Zionism" includes the following: "The Sunday Times reported in August 2006 that "[w]omen pushing their children in buggies bearing the familiar symbol of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament marched last weekend alongside banners proclaiming 'We are all Hezbollah now' and Muslim extremists chanting 'Oh Jew, the army of Muhammad will return'." This is quoted from an article about various feminists' disillusionment with the antiwar movement; they're appalled by the latter's alleged alliance with Islamist groups – because of these groups' attitudes towards women, not their attitude towards Jews, which isn't even discussed. The "Oh Jew" quoted from a marcher's slogan is the only allusion to antisemitism in the entire article, and it seems to be there because it's an arresting detail and adds memorable color to the piece. Perhaps this makes it over the bar of WP:NOR, I don't know. I don't like to shape article content around such technicalities, and I'm not eager to remove this. But it does seem suggestive of what many here perceive as a troubling double standard, where something like the IJV debate is ruled out of relevance, on technical grounds that make no sense to many, but material that touches ever so fleetingly on the topic at hand is included – provided, that is, that it offers support (in this case glancing and anecdotal support) for the NAS thesis rather than a critique of it.--G-Dett 17:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a messy topic, because it tends to conflate a whole host of issues that are each complicated on their own, e.g., the rhetoric of left-wing radicals; prime forces within the Arab world that take many different forms; and the entry of the right wing in common cause with others against Israel. But at the risk of being accused of reductionism, it seems to me that this article is about a couple of key questions: is the apparent resurgence in antisemitic incidents around the world sufficiently distinct from prior such incidents to label it "new?" If so, why, and why does it matter? What is the evidence that criticism/condemnation of Israel is either a pretext for antisemitic views or encourages them? I don't think we need to cite every single source for one view or another on this, merely enough to illustrate their points and show the breadth of views. --Leifern 19:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you Leifern, except I'd substitute "is motivated by them" for "encourages them" in your second question. I'd also stress that a messy topic shouldn't mean a messy article (we don't have an article on the mimetic fallacy but we should). What do you think of my substantive proposals?--G-Dett 19:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm only able to drop in briefly today to this article, sorry. G-Dett's summary is excellent to my mind, and the article should go with all his suggestions, at least until the point at which further disagreements surface. I also agree with Leifern's point. Could I suggest again that the History of antisemitism article would be a good place for recounting the recent history of antisemitism (as opposed to the history of the concept of (new/old antisemitism)? Also, I may have said this before, see Homosexual agenda for an example of a contentious concept given a relatively straightforward NPOV treatment. I think I am on one "side" in the mediation and would be very happy for either G-Dett or C.J. to represent that side, or Aminz if neither of them have the time. Itsmejudith 20:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation Proposal

[edit] Mackan79

Based on the comments above, it seems clear we have a lot of issues here that could be mediated, but also a practical limitation on what four editors can accomplish. Based on various comments, I'd offer the following proposal:

1.) Deciding up front on how to address the lead. A proposal was discussed at some length earlier here, with a reduced version implemented here, as follows:
New antisemitism is the concept of a new 21st-century form of antisemitism emanating simultaneously from the political left, far-right, and Islamism, and tending to manifest iteslf as opposition to Zionism and the State of Israel. [1] The term has entered common usage to refer to what some writers describe as a wave of antisemitism that escalated, particularly in Western Europe, after the Second Intifada in 2000, the failure of the Oslo accords, and the September 11, 2001 attacks. [2][3]
Proponents of the concept argue that anti-Zionism, anti-Americanism, anti-globalization, third worldism, and opposition to the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish homeland may be coupled with antisemitism or may constitute disguised antisemitism. [2][3] Critics of the concept argue that it serves to equate legitimate criticism of Israel with antisemitism, and that it is used to silence debate. [5][6]
The question here seems largely to Slim: would we be able to settle this up front? If so, it could be scratched from the mediation. I should say this proposal falls rather far short of Aminz' above stressing the relationship of NAS with anti-Zionism (something others and I also agree is an important part of the concept), but perhaps would be acceptable by leaving the details to later in the article.
2.) Reaching an agreement, either with a mediator or through self-mediation, on how to deal with the history section and issues of OR, including discussions of Flannery here and 1949 Commentary article here.
3.) Agreeing to mediate or agreeing to defer on issues of what to include and how to structure the "Responses Section." Discussions here included whether the section should be restructured, as well as whether to include certain materials, such as the launch of International Jewish Voices, and the debate over the "Progressive Jewish Thought and the New Antisemitism" paper. Our discussion on much of this is found here.

Beyond that, my concern is that the issues have probably not been hashed out enough for us to effectively mediate. My inclination, as stated above, is that we would be better off deferring on those issues, and agreeing to engage them as they come up. In doing so, we would simply recognize the rather narrow purpose of this mediation, to try to resolve a couple of issues which have really plagued the page for some time, and hopefully to get things back on track for future discussion. This is simply to get the ball rolling, though; comments on any of this, including the substantive proposal in point 1., are welcome below. Mackan79 19:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jayjg

I'd have to agree, that this is the place to start. It seems that people are trying to use the mediation to discuss every single issue they can think of under the sun; if we go down that route, mediation will be endless and impossible. Let's deal with the top issues first, the ones which have had the most discussion and debate. After that is worked out, we can possibly think of other areas of discussion. However, regarding the lead you've listed, the proposed new version was as follows:

New antisemitism is the concept of a new 21st-century form of antisemitism emanating simultaneously from the left, the far right, and radical Islam, and tending to manifest itself as opposition to Zionism and the State of Israel. The term has entered common usage to refer to what some writers describe as a wave of antisemitism that escalated, particularly in Western Europe, after the Second Intifada in 2000, the failure of the Oslo accords, and the September 11, 2001 attacks. [2][3]

The concept generally posits that an international resurgence of attacks on Jewish symbols, an increased acceptance of antisemitic beliefs in public discourse, and vilification of Israel by various individuals and world bodies, together constitute a single phenomenon, and an evolution in the appearance of antisemitic beliefs.

Proponents of the concept argue that anti-Zionism, anti-Americanism, anti-globalization, third worldism, and demonization of Israel or double standards applied to its conduct may be linked to antisemitism, or constitute disguised antisemitism. [2][3] Critics of the concept argue that it trivializes the meaning of antisemitism, defines legitimate criticism of Israel too narrowly and demonization too broadly, and exploits antisemitism in order to silence debate.

--Jayjg (talk) 00:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
What was wrong with that? Looks good to me, and accurately describes the concept as well as the criticism. <<-armon->> 00:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
People didn't like the fact that it accurately represented the views of the proponents of the concept, particularly their view that it involved demonization of Israel and double standards towards it. They wanted proponents to make a much milder argument which they didn't actually make. Jayjg (talk) 00:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CJCurrie

I'm not entirely certain what Jayjg is referring to in his previous edit. I've argued for more than a year that the introduction should (i) accurately define the concept of "new antisemitism", (ii) accurately convey the views of its proponents, and (iii) accurately convey the views of its critics. The current proposals represent a marked improvement on these fronts, and should generally be acceptable to most parties involved in these discussions.
That said, I still have two concerns to raise.
(i) I have some doubts about the accuracy of the following statement:

The concept generally posits that an international resurgence of attacks on Jewish symbols, an increased acceptance of antisemitic beliefs in public discourse, and vilification of Israel by various individuals and world bodies, together constitute a single phenomenon, and an evolution in the appearance of antisemitic beliefs.

I am not certain that all NAS-proponents have defined the term in precisely this manner. While it's true that some have used the term to designate "various developments which together constitute a single phenomenon", there are also others who have used it more narrowly, usually with specific reference to Israel.
I've argued in the past that the introduction should indicate that the term has been used in different ways by different authors. My concern with Jayjg's wording is that it may define the term too narrowly, and promote one specific interpretation of the concept as the "correct" one.
As I have little interest in unnecessarily prolonging this discussion, I'd like to make the following request: could contributors please indicate precisely how specific proponents of the "new antisemitism" concept have defined the term? If we're able to focus our attention on what the sources actually say, we shouldn't have too much difficulty in resolving this matter once and for all.
(ii) I'd like to propose that the final sentence be adjusted to read as follows: "Critics of the concept argue that it trivializes the meaning of antisemitism, defines legitimate criticism of Israel too narrowly and demonization too broadly, conflates anti-Zionism with antisemitism, and exploits antisemitism in order to silence debate."
Reason: Some proponents of the NAS-concept have argued that some ideological positions toward Israel (binationalism, for instance) are inherently antisemitic. Many opponents have disagreed with this contention. We should clarify this matter in the introduction. CJCurrie 02:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Your proposal for a final sentence looks like an accurate summary of the main arguments of critics. Jayjg (talk) 19:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Should I assume this matter is resolved, then? CJCurrie 20:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
It is with me. Jayjg (talk) 22:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] G-Dett

It's great to see this progress on the lead. Jay and CJ raise important points, both about the same sentence. There was indeed debate about the terminology, especially "vilification"/"demonization." Jay, who is fond of the word "strawman," claims that his editorial opponents on this page wish NAS's proponents had made their case in milder terms, and are taking the liberty of pretending they did. As everyone who followed that debate knows, the NPOV issues raised had more to do with phraseology than word choice. The formulation "Proponents argue that a, b, and c constitute a single phenomenon, X," strongly suggests that a, b, and c exist by common consensus, that only their convergence in X is disputed (Proponents argue that unicorns constitute a subspecies of Equus caballus, etc.). No one ever – pace Jayjg – objected to attributing words like "demonization" and "vilification" to NAS's proponents; what we objected to was naturalizing and assimilating that vocabulary. Which is why we ensured that the final sentence, in summing up the critics' view, made clear that they dispute the accuracy of words like "demonization" as they're used by proponents.

CJ raises a different objection to that sentence. As I understand it, the problem is that the sentence implies that NAS-proponents concern themselves equally with a, b, and c (international resurgence of attacks on Jewish symbols, an increased acceptance of antisemitic beliefs in public discourse, and vilification of Israel by various individuals and world bodies), whereas many if not most are in fact focused on the third of these things.

I see the point of this; "vilification" of Israel is indeed the central theme in the discourse of NAS, and it is obviously the theme that has guided editors in their collation of material for this article (recall the bitter debate about the EUMC definition). But even those NAS-proponents who are singularly focused on the subject of vilification of Israel do link it to items a and b (attacks on Jewish symbols, antisemitism tolerated and condoned in public discourse); in fact this linkage is what makes it possible to define as "vilification" the kind of criticism they're talking about.

The following sentence would answer to both of the objections above, while preserving all the content of the sentence as it currently stands:

The concept generally posits that much of what purports to be criticism of Israel by various individuals and world bodies is in fact tantamount to demonization, and that together with an international resurgence of attacks on Jewish symbols and an increased acceptance of antisemitic beliefs in public discourse, this demonization represents an evolution in the appearance of antisemitic beliefs.

Could something like this work?--G-Dett 14:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Might I briefly suggest taking out "of what purports to be"? It may not be necessary. Other than that, I'll have to look in more detail. Mackan79 14:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
It would certainly sound better. It's just that "criticism of Israel" is as much a contested phrase as "demonization of Israel." But maybe that would still be clear if we followed your suggestion.--G-Dett 14:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Maily for stylistic reasons I would prefer

The concept generally posits that much of what purports to be criticism of Israel by various individuals and world bodies is in fact tantamount to demonization, and that together with an international resurgence of attacks on Jewish symbols and an increased acceptance of antisemitic beliefs in public discourse, this vilification represents an evolution in the appearance of antisemitic beliefs.

"Purports to be" is important, because Wikipedia shouldn't take sides on the question of whether or not it really is criticism. Jayjg (talk) 19:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Jay's modification looks fine to me.--G-Dett 19:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd recommend removing the word "vilification". Beyond that, I have no problems with Jayjg's proposed version. CJCurrie 20:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
With CJ's amendment, that would also be fine with me. Would that be fine then? Mackan79 20:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Any of these is fine with me. I wrote "...this demonization represents an evolution" etc. to stress that the sentence was resuming where it left off after the first use of the word, i.e. so that criticism/demonization of Israel would still be the main subject. The point of this was to answer to CJ's objection. Jay for stylistic reasons prefers "vilification" the second time around. I'd prefer to keep the same word, whether it's "vilification" or "demonization," partly because I'm not a fan of elegant variation but mostly because the exact reprise better serves the purpose of syntactic clarity. It keeps the Israel issue on top among the various facets of NAS, and that after all has been the point of revising the lead, no? But as far as I'm concerned any of these will do; it's nice to be debating style and not POV.--G-Dett 20:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
My concern was that we might be seen to endorse the "NAS-proponent" view by including a reference to "this vilification". I understand G-Dett's point, however, and I can see how my suggestion could serve to make the sentence more ambiguous. Would adjusting the line to read "such demonisation" resolve the matter to everyone's satisfaction? CJCurrie 20:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Also glad for the substantive discussion. Regarding G-Dett's point on ambiguity, I guess my stylistic preference for CJ's amendment was actually based in the assumption that the sentence was still characterizing the evolution as the combination of things. Of course, the other changes still place a greater emphasis on the role of anti-Zionism, which some of us were seeking to clarify. If so, I would be fine with that, in exchange for avoiding the variation, which I think also adds a certain edge to things per G-Dett's primary post above. Otherwise, I think using "demonization" twice is clear and accurate while also avoiding that edge. Are either of these possible? If so, I think we have a pretty fair definition. Mackan79 21:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
If you want to change it to "such demonization" instead of "this vilification" that's fine. I would suggest that we keep the spelling of "demonization" consistent. I have no preference as to which spelling is used. Jayjg (talk) 22:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I think we've reached agreement here as well. CJCurrie 00:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Quick question: Our sentences now would be "Critics of the concept argue that it trivializes the meaning of antisemitism, defines legitimate criticism of Israel too narrowly and demonization too broadly, conflates anti-Zionism with antisemitism, and exploits antisemitism in order to silence debate." If possible, I'd like to change the order to, "Critics of the concept argue that it conflates anti-Zionism with antisemitism, defines legitimate criticism of Israel too narrowly and demonization too broadly, trivializes the meaning of antisemitism, and exploits antisemitism in order to silence debate." I think this is a more natural and less aggressive way to put it for a few reasons, which I tend to think is good (plus I think more accurately reflects the primary concerns). Is that ok with others? I think maybe then we'd be good on both parts. Mackan79 14:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
On second thought, either way is really fine, but others could say if they had a preference, or if it doesn't matter.Mackan79 14:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm fine with either order. Would you mind starting a new section with the latest proposed lead, so we can all get a look at the final product? At that point, if everyone agrees (and I assume they will), Crum375 can insert it into the article, and we can move on to the next issue for mediation. Jayjg (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll be happy to comply when you all are ready, but can you also address Aminz's proposal below? Crum375 18:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Aminz isn't part of the mediation. I'm sure Aminz means well, but he consistently finds a specific quote from a specific author that he happens to like, and then tries to skew the entire article, and particularly the lead, to reflect the view of that one quote. I've seen it on at least six articles in the past, and I don't want a repeat here. We're trying to summarize the views all all significant writers on the subject, not just one quote from one author. Jayjg (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying. I see that Mackan79 has encouraged Aminz below to collaborate with the others and try to hammer out a single combined version. Hopefully you all can find the right formula. Let me know if I can be of any assistance to you. Thanks, Crum375 20:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
For now the mediation is with Mackan79 and CJCurrie, and we've hammered out an agreement. One of the major decisions made in this mediation is that it would be between a small number of representatives, over a small number of issues. Jayjg (talk) 23:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mackan79

OK, well just to be clear, I'm fine with the three paragraph version. My thought with the two paragraph version was that it may simply be better not to delve into the whole effort to define exactly what kind of negativity toward Israel qualifies as NAS, since it's such a contested issue. Perhaps this option should remain as a back-up plan.

Otherwise, problems from CJ seem to include:

  1. The term is portrayed here as one theory, but the theory possibly differs depending on the author. Many seem to focus specifically on anti-Zionism, others on a rise in explicitly antisemitic incidents.
  2. The last sentence should note conflation of anti-Zionism with antisemitism as a concern of critics.

In terms of solutions, so far CJ and G-Dett have offered two. For problem 1., G-Dett adds "The concept generally posits that much of what purports to be criticism of Israel by various individuals and world bodies is in fact tantamount to demonization, and that together..." to the second paragraph to note the centrality of that issue. For problem 2., CJ adds "conflates anti-Zionism with antisemitism" to the last sentence.

In my view, solution 2. seems simple and fine. Solution 1., I think is the problem that has plagued us, and am not sure we can fully resolve, since presenting the theory as either unified, or presenting it as separate phenomena, both take sides in a debate. That said, if we do want to resolve the issue, that may be the point we have to circumvent.

Notably, I think our third paragraph actually does circumvent the issue effectively by withholding comment on whether it's a unified theory. Otherwise, the other two paragraphs do imply or state a unified theory. This gets back to why I suggested the two paragraph version as a compromise, which still implies a unified theory, but avoids saying too much on the issue. Either way, CJ's request remains that figuring out exactly what arguments we're summarizing in the lead could be another way to help neutrally address the issue, which I think is also a good suggestion. Mackan79 18:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

My request may no longer be necessary. I believe that Jayjg's revised proposal defines the term in such a way as to address the concerns I've raised. CJCurrie 20:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Agreement on Lead?

Ok, two things. First, on the lead, it appears we have a good proposal. I'd like to paste it below for final review and potential placement in the article. In doing so, I'm including my last suggestion with Jayjg's consent, though I'm open to the former order if others disagree.

New antisemitism is the concept of a new 21st-century form of antisemitism emanating simultaneously from the left, the far right, and radical Islam, and tending to manifest itself as opposition to Zionism and the State of Israel. The term has entered common usage to refer to what some writers describe as a wave of antisemitism that escalated, particularly in Western Europe, after the Second Intifada in 2000, the failure of the Oslo accords, and the September 11, 2001 attacks. [2][3]
The concept generally posits that much of what purports to be criticism of Israel by various individuals and world bodies is in fact tantamount to demonization, and that together with an international resurgence of attacks on Jewish symbols and an increased acceptance of antisemitic beliefs in public discourse, such demonization represents an evolution in the appearance of antisemitic beliefs.
Proponents of the concept argue that anti-Zionism, anti-Americanism, anti-globalization, third worldism, and demonization of Israel or double standards applied to its conduct may be linked to antisemitism, or constitute disguised antisemitism. [2][3] Critics of the concept argue that it conflates anti-Zionism with antisemitism, defines legitimate criticism of Israel too narrowly and demonization too broadly, trivializes the meaning of antisemitism, and exploits antisemitism in order to silence debate.
I believe that "such demonization" should be rephrased as "such perceived demonization." Other than that I'm fine with the introduction.--Abenyosef 03:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I know Aminz is proposing a broader change; I'm hoping he'll be satisfied with the version above, which I think is clearer about one of his points.

Second thing: Moving forward. Personally, I'm glad for the dialogue so far, and would like very much simply to bring this spirit to the other issues. If the need for formal mediation still exists, though, might I propose G-Dett's substitution for my participation? I think this makes sense for a lot of reasons, particularly that my major concern appears to be resolved, but also simply because I think she's a better representative. Would this be ok? I don't know if Slim and Jayjg would prefer this or not. I asked G-Dett by email, who said she'd be willing. Otherwise, as I said, I'd really prefer to just continue the dialogue, but for mediation, I think that would be best. Responses on both points welcome. Mackan79 18:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with this version, and I'd prefer to work with you and CJCurrie for now; my previous interactions with G-Dett have not gone well, and I am certain that SlimVirgin would refuse to interact with G-Dett, primarily because she has already stated this, on this Talk: page. Jayjg (talk) 19:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
My two cents -that version looks good to me as well. <<-armon->> 22:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we needed a little break here; I've been waiting for others to comment. I'm ready to put this in. To AbenYosef's suggestion, I think it's fair, but also that it's perhaps somewhat implied. I'd actually still prefer something like "these factors" for "such demonization," which would prevent the use of that word three times in the lead (plus the picture) but would also actually be more inclusive of those NAS proponents who don't necessarily focus exclusively on anti-Zionism, per Slim's previously voiced concerns. I think this would raise the quality, but I won't insist either way.
To moving forward, and regarding the substitution, would you be open then to continuing this semi-open discussion that we've just had? True, we were already close to agreement on the lead, but it might be tried on the other material, if we simply started with some sort of substantive proposal/compromise on the history section. In that regard, the outside comments actually seemed like they were pretty helpful. Otherwise, I guess my question would be whether Slim was going to participate with either G-Dett or myself. I'm still not sure if people are set on a formal mediation, though, something which maybe needs to be decided at the same time. Mackan79 03:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
This seems to be working - you, CJCurrie, and me. Why not just change the lead, and continue to the next issue for now? Jayjg (talk) 03:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Jay's suggestion makes sense; I think we should continue as we are, for the time being. I haven't seen this level of cooperation since my first appearance on the page in mid-2005. CJCurrie 06:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Good work on the compromise, folks! pertn 11:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, as to continuing, that sounds fine to me as well. Regarding the lead, I was just trying to combine the new version with the wikilinks and sources for insertion, and unfortunately found another possibly more significant problem, however: that is, with our new reliance (x3) on the word "demonization," can our current picture possibly work as well? I'm concerned it really doesn't. I'll admit the picture has somewhat disturbed me since first arriving on this page, but if we're presenting the theory here as one of demonization, the whole thing seems almost surreal. Other thoughts on this? Mackan79 22:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we should post the revised introduction first, and concern ourselves with the image later. CJCurrie 23:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
See your comment now. That's fine; if all would like to move forward that might be a better issue to leave for wider input if necessary. Mackan79 00:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
If you all are in agreement, do you want me to replace the lead with your new consensus version? If so, please post below the exact text and I'll insert it. Thanks, Crum375 23:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I was just hoping for a response on the picture, if you wouldn't mind waiting a little longer. For reference, I'll section it off below.Mackan79 23:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
No problem. Just alert me on my Talk page when you need my help. Thanks, Crum375 00:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
It looks like we're going forward then. I'll ask Crum to insert the lead. If the second issue is the history section, then, would it be best, CJ, if you offer a proposal? Perhaps we could start a new section then at the bottom of the page. Mackan79 17:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Done. Please let me know if I can help any further. Crum375 17:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] With Sources and Picture

New antisemitism is the concept of a new 21st-century form of antisemitism emanating simultaneously from the left, the far right, and radical Islam, and tending to manifest itself as opposition to Zionism and the State of Israel.[3] The term has entered common usage to refer to what some writers describe as a wave of antisemitism that escalated, particularly in Western Europe, after the Second Intifada in 2000, the failure of the Oslo accords, and the September 11, 2001 attacks. [4][5][6]

The concept generally posits that much of what purports to be criticism of Israel by various individuals and world bodies is in fact tantamount to demonization, and that together with an international resurgence of attacks on Jewish symbols and an increased acceptance of antisemitic beliefs in public discourse, such demonization represents an evolution in the appearance of antisemitic beliefs.

Photographed at an anti-war rally in San Francisco on February 16, 2003, this placard mixes anti-imperialist, anti-American, anti-capitalist, anti-Zionist and anti-globalization imagery with some classic antisemitic motifs. Photograph taken by zombie of [ http://www.zombietime.com zombietime.com].
Photographed at an anti-war rally in San Francisco on February 16, 2003, this placard mixes anti-imperialist, anti-American, anti-capitalist, anti-Zionist and anti-globalization imagery with some classic antisemitic motifs. Photograph taken by zombie of [ http://www.zombietime.com zombietime.com]. [7]

Proponents of the concept argue that anti-Zionism, anti-Americanism, anti-globalization, third worldism, and opposition to the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish homeland may be coupled with antisemitism or may constitute disguised antisemitism. [4][5] Critics of the concept argue that it conflates anti-Zionism with antisemitism, defines legitimate criticism of Israel too narrowly and demonization too broadly, trivializes the meaning of antisemitism, and exploits antisemitism in order to silence debate. [8][9]

You've left out the fairly critical phrase "or double standards applied to its conduct". I'm not sure why. Jayjg (talk) 03:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
My mistake, I missed that sentence. It should be "Proponents of the concept argue that anti-Zionism, anti-Americanism, anti-globalization, third worldism, and demonization of Israel or double standards applied to its conduct may be linked to antisemitism, or constitute disguised antisemitism," as the first sentence of the third paragraph. I'll let Crum know, thanks. Mackan79 04:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I inserted the sentence and fixed the wikilinks - let me know if anything else is needed. Crum375 04:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

Here is my proposal. I have tried to incorporate what I found to be the main argument of Laquer (feel free to add more).

Proponents of the concept argue that anti-Zionism, anti-Americanism, anti-globalization, third worldism, and opposition to the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish homeland may be coupled with antisemitism or may constitute disguised antisemitism.[4][5] Proponents argue that the criticism of the state of Israel for its polices and deeds is comparably more frequent and harsher than that in similar cases where the Jews are not involved.[10] Critics of the concept argue that there is no "new antisemitism" because anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are two distinct tendencies, because "there is no demand for the expulsion of the Jews, not even for specific anti-Jewish legislation", and "If this is antisemitism, they argue, there is as much, if not more, Islamophobia in the Western world, in Russia, and elsewhere."[11] Critics hold that the concept serves to equate legitimate criticism of Israel with antisemitism, and that it is used to silence debate.[8][9]

Please let me know if there are points of disagreements. --Aminz 07:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

If anybody disagrees with my proposal, please comment here. I would like to apply this addition to the article. Thanks --Aminz 21:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Original quote:

"Some observers of the European and American scene argue that there is no "new antisemitism" and that antisemitism and anti-Zionism (or anti-Israelism) are two distinctly different tendencies that should not be confused. There is no demand for the expulsion of the Jews, not even for specific anti-Jewish legislation, and in this respect too, there is a difference the present and the racialist antisemitism of the past. If this is antisemitism, they argue, there is as much, if not more, Islamophobia in the Western world, in Russia, and elsewhere." cf. "The changing face of antisemitism" by Walter Laqueur, Oxford University Press, p.5

--Aminz 00:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Aminz, sorry for ignoring your comments. I just posted our most recent proposal from the discussions above, which seems to have some amount of agreement, and possibly moves closer to what you have suggested. Does that version do anything to resolve your concerns? One suggestion otherwise might be to suggest any change to the proposal we had above. I don't know how that can work, or if people will agree, but it would at least help put everyone on the same page. Best, Mackan79 18:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Aminz, the Laqueur quote is interesting, and perhaps deserves to be in the body of the article. My feeling is that the positions it alludes to are too specific to be appropriate for a one-sentence overview of the "con" position. I'm also not sure why you're eager to have Laqueur speak for and summarize the "con" position. Though I think his summary is sober and makes an effort to be fair, it does seem to me subtly misleading. Anything short of proposals for anti-Jewish laws and demands for their expulsion doesn't qualify as antisemitism, according to critics of NAS? I wonder who his sources are for this argument. Or for the idea that critics of NAS are all serene in the certainty that antisemitism and anti-Zionism are "distinctly different" [sic] and never cross paths or cross wires. Brian Klug, for one, has more subtle things to say on this topic. (Norman Finkelstein, of all people, has more subtle things to say on this topic.) The Laqueur quote isn't worthless, by any means, and if the point about Islamophobia is well-sourced it should certainly be in the article, but I just don't think it makes sense for the lead to have the "con" position summarized by someone in the "pro" camp, especially when his summary is at best idiosyncratic, at worst a phalanx of plainclothes strawmen.--G-Dett 21:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with G-Dett here. I think the proposed compromise above is better for the lead. <<-armon->> 22:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think "anti-semitism" is a very specific term: singling out the Jews among others; applying double standards. In that way, I liked Laqueur's consistent approach; not necessarily all his conclusions. The responses from critics are along the same lines. They would like to show that there is nothing specific to Jews. From a legal point of view, there is no specific anti-Jewish legislation. From a "hate" point of view, there is as much, if not more, Islamophobia in the Western world, in Russia, and elsewhere.
Laqueuer when talking about new antisemitism in relation of Islam and antisemitism states that the distinction between Zionists and Jews is not made in reality in Muslim world (which I believe is inaccurate in the case of Iran).
When reading the book, I realized that he never mentions that Israel is sometimes singled out because there are holy places for Muslims there (other countries are different). Israel/Palestine has always been an important land. So, some of the double standards could be very well because of the importance. Further, the formation of Israel could be added. I think the article should provide such possible arguments by critics when the issue is brought up. --Aminz 04:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, Aminz, which critics of NAS does Laqueur cite for this sentence: "There is no demand for the expulsion of the Jews, not even for specific anti-Jewish legislation, and in this respect too, there is a difference between the present and the racialist antisemitism of the past"? I don't have the original at hand. This would seem like a very strange argument for NAS critics to make – implying as it does that a demand for Jewish expulsion or anti-Jewish laws (!) together mark the threshold where criticism of Israel crosses over into antisemitism. --G-Dett 14:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

That's not the critics' but Laqueur's argument on how the new antisemitism is different from the old one. Beit Or 15:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I suspect you're right, Beit Or, which is one reason I'd object to Aminz's proposal to add the following sentence to the lead: Critics of the concept argue that there is no "new antisemitism" because anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are two distinct tendencies, because "there is no demand for the expulsion of the Jews, not even for specific anti-Jewish legislation," etc.

[edit] Headline: Early 20th century Auto-maker travels through time to hate Jews

Why does the caption of the octopus picture link to Henry Ford's article? --205.133.240.254 14:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"The International Jew: The World's Foremost Problem is a four volume set of books originally published and distributed in the early 1920's by Henry Ford..." Tom Harrison Talk 15:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comment by CJCurrie

I should first apologize for neglecting this dicussion in recent days. I've been busy with real-life matters, and my online time has been restricted.

During the last few months, my primary focus on this page has been directed toward two particular controversies: the "Flannery" paragraph (now deleted) and the "1949 Commentary" paragraph (unfortunately still in place). Both of these matters are relatively minor in nature, and in my opinion both are rather straightforward. As such, I've become extremely frustrated with the lengths I've had to go to resolve them.

In the case of the Flannery paragraph, I presented clear evidence that the material was (i) irrelevant to the subject, (ii) of suspect credibility as a source, and (iii) demonstrably inaccurate in some particulars. In spite of this, it took me a full month (and aborted mediation proceedings) before it was grudgingly removed by another contributor. The "Commentary" matter is equally straightforward. I've indicated that the 1949 article did not use the term in "close to its modern form", and also noted that the article is entirely unrelated to the "Doctor's Plot" (which in any event occurred three years later). The corresponding paragraph is, as such, irrelevant to the subject, improperly sourced, and demonstrably inaccurate in some particulars. It should, by all rights, be removed immediately. Instead, all attempts to remove it have met with strong resistance.

Each time I've raised objections these sections, I've been subjected to the same criticism: that I'm attempting to whitewash the existence of Leftist antisemitism. I can only interpret this as a strategy of deflection. No one in this discussion has ever denied the existence of a Leftist anti-Semitism, and none have excused it, but the suggestion that "New antisemitism" is somehow the culmination of dominant trends in the 19th and 20th century Left is another matter entirely, and does not rise to the level of encyclopedic merit.

These matters should have been simple to resolve, but they were not -- a fact that leaves me extremely apprehensive about further attempts to improve the page. There are several other aspects of this article that I consider problematic: some are simple and straightforward, others are more complicated and contentious. If the past is any guide, changing even the simplest of these will not be easy.

There are some grounds for hope, however, in that a spirit of cooperation and consensus-building seems to have emerged in recent weeks. The discussions concerning the introductory paragraph were very productive, and were conducted without the sort of mutual recriminations that plagued us for much of 2006. I've been very impressed by the reasonable tone of the debate, of a sort that I've not seen since my first intervention to this page in early 2005. In this regard, I must give particular credit to User:Jayjg, whom I've often regarded as an adversary.

I hope, as such, that we'll soon be able to move forward on some of these matters, and arrive at consensus decisions to improve the presentation of the article. I'll be presenting my suggestions for a revised "History" section in the near future, and will of course welcome feedback from others (particularly Jay and Mackan, who seem to be the most actively engaged in current negotiations). If this doesn't work, protracted mediation is always an option.

Concerning the "Commentary" paragraph, my views are unchanged: it has to go. If NAS-proponents have cited the Soviet Union as an influence on the modern concept, then I'd have no problem acknowledging this in the article. The current paragraph, however, is entirely unsuitable and should be removed as soon as possible. CJCurrie 06:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I too am encouraged by the progress made here in recent weeks; it's a real credit to Jay, CJ, and Mackan. May it continue.
I've taken a back seat because it was intimated that this would secure Slim's participation. I continue to watch the page closely. I concur with CJ about the Commentary article in the "History" section. I have my own concerns about this section (as detailed higher up on this page under "G-Dett's suggestions for mediation and/or general future editing of the article"), which I hope will be taken into consideration as discussion of that section gets underway.--G-Dett 17:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not up to speed with what's been going on in the article. This is just to let you know that there was some potentially relevant stuff in the Times Higher Education Supplement last week or the week before that people might want to check out. I've got the paper edition if you can't find it on the website. Itsmejudith 21:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Would anyone object to the removal of the "Commentary" paragraph now? CJCurrie 22:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

How about if we refer to it as an early use of the term "New antisemitism" as applied to left-wing antisemitism? That would seem to solve any original research issues. As I've mentioned before, antisemitism was typically thought of as a right-wing movement, particularly after the 1930s, so this use of the term to describe left-wing antisemitism is, in my view, notable and relevant. Jayjg (talk) 22:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
As I've said before, I won't object if someone wants to provide sourced material to indicate the historical relevance of the left to the "NAS" concept, but I don't believe this source is adequate to that end. (The article, after all, is about a permutation in Soviet antisemitism). CJCurrie 22:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand; one of the characteristics of "New antisemitism" is that it comes from the left, rather than the right. Do we not agree on that? Jayjg (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Unless I'm quite mistaken, most NAS-proponents believe the concept is affiliated with, but not exclusive to, the left. For that matter, our own introduction defines the concept as being associated with diverse ideological positions. So, no, I don't agree with this proposition.
I'm certainly not aware of any author who believes that "NAS" is a simple extension of classical antisemitism from the left (which would be the only possible justification for retaining the Commentary piece).
The Commentary article acknowledges the presence of anti-Semitism in the USSR under Stalin, and argues that its essential nature shifted between the 1930s and 1940s. This argument is utterly irrelevant to the modern "NAS" concept, and must be removed.
I will reiterate once again that I am not opposed to referencing the view that the modern "NAS" concept has historical connections to the left. The Commentary paragraph, however, is unsuitable to this end. CJCurrie 05:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
It's clear that those who support the "New antisemitism" paradigm insist that one of the things that is "New" about it is that it comes from the left, not the right. This is an early example of the term "New antisemitism" being applied to the left. If we word it that way, then it's not clear to me where the original research would be. Jayjg (talk) 21:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Do any of the scholars or experts on NAS address the Soviet phenomenon as a precedent?--G-Dett 22:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Those authors who promote the "New antisemitism" concept may well believe that its presumed emanation from the left rather than the right is a part of what makes it "new", but this doesn't mean that we should use an unrelated Commentary article from 1949 to verify their arguments.
I think I've been quite reasonable in allowing for some sort of replacement text, but will reiterate that the current paragraph is irrelevant and must be removed ASAP. CJCurrie 07:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
What reference do you think would be more appropriate? Jayjg (talk) 02:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a particular source in mind, but something from an NAS-proponent who directly links the modern concept to Soviet antisemitism should suffice. I'll leave it someone else to suggest a specific reference.
I hope we can finally move on from this point in a day or so. CJCurrie 04:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, slow-motion chess ain't much of a spectator sport so I'm climbing down from the peanut gallery to move a pawn or two. As Slim is nowhere to be seen I don't see any further rationale for my playing dead. The grounds articulated for inclusion of the Commentary article are absurd. The left implicated by the "new antisemitism" as defined and discussed by this article is not some generic and monolithic abstraction somehow comprising anything and everything from contemporary anti-colonialism to the Soviet empire under the state tyranny of Stalin; antisemitism "on the left" defined with this sort of gigantic gaseous vagueness would be nothing new or novel. What is new is a contemporary human-rights based leftist critique of Israel taking on or becoming infected by the tropes of classical antisemitism. The Commentary article, even as it's currently misrepresented by this article, does not even remotely address this issue. The phrase "new antisemitism" is a generic and time-bound phrase, and there is nothing whatsoever to indicate that Commentary's use of it in 1949 has anything to do with the subject of our article. If it did, then one of our reliable sources would have cited it. We don't trace postmodernism (a school of philosophy which emerged in the 1960s) to some casual and incidental use of the phrase "post-modernist" in the 1940s (and such nonce uses did crop up, meaning simply 'after modernism'). If we did, it'd be a classic case of OR, not to mention a sophomoric misrepresentation, both of which things this silly paragraph is. Check-mate, let's move on.--G-Dett

Can I ask, Jay, what we're waiting for? Personally I think your suggestion to refer to the term does help the OR problem, at least on one level. The problem is: why would we start the history section with a reference to something that's not New Antisemitism? If we want to give a history of the term, that's legitimate, but then it should be clear we're giving a history of the term, not just one item on the term, to start a section on the history of the concept. Do we need this paragraph? It seems like a pretty small thing; if you offer this, I'll be happy to keep it in mind with wherever the discussion moves next. I can't speak for others; I think CJ makes very valid suggestions for the history section below, but I'm prepared to offer a fair amount of deference to any reasonable arguments you present throughout this, if small concessions are made (as they have been in the lead, and I appreciate). Mackan79 23:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Mackan, you have a negotiating politesse I can't hope to match, but can at least try not to interfere with. That said, I want to underline that referring to the 1949 article's "early use of the term" instead of its "early use of the concept" does not solve the OR problem, but merely chases it into a different corner. A passing acquaintance between common words does not constitute a "term" unless or until usage and circumstance codify it as such. There were plenty of "new historians" before the work of Morris, Pappe, et al – before, that is, that configuration of common words acquired stable semantic content and thereby became a term. Similarly, the words "new" and "historicism" had shaken hands, paused and smiled for the Polaroid cameras of literary history before Stephen Greenblatt coined the phrase "new historicism," but that doesn't change the fact that it was Greenblatt who coined it; none of those casual snapshots can now be dusted off and displayed as "early uses of the term." There were "new waves" of filmmakers before Godard, Truffaut, et al. There were, for that matter, "new summer beach looks" before the one featured in this month's Cosmo. A phrase is one thing, a term another, and to say the 1949 piece features "an early use of the term" merely begs the question.--G-Dett 17:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
We reference the Robert Wistrich article, which states fairly clearly:

Perhaps anti-Semitism is not quite the right word, though as the former editor of the London Observer, Conor Cruise O’Brien, pointed out in that newspaper, June 1982. For the people in question, to quote this astute observer, were even extravagantly philo-Semitic these days, in their feelings for the Arabic-speaking branch of the Semitic linguistic family”. Obrien suggested a new term, “anti-Jewism” – “it’s an ugly word, so it fits nicely”. He proposed “a pragmatic test, for possible “anti-Jewism” in discussion of Israel” – namely “if your interlocutor can’t keep Hitler out of the conversation, if he is… feverishly turning Jews into Nazis and Arabs intro Jews – why then I think you may be talking to a anti-Jewist.” The O’Brien litmus test is certainly a useful guide for identifying a major component of contemporary anti-Semitic anti-Zionism in both Eat and Wet. In the Communist world, this type of “anti-Jewish” dates back at least 30 years to the period of the Slansky trial in Czechoslovakia and the so called “Doctors’ Plot” orchestrated by the dying Stalin. But it only attained full force after the massive Arab defeat in June 1967, when the USSR, to revive its own damaged prestige, embarked on a systematic campaign to totally discredit Israel, Zionism and Judaism,

Wouldn't that count as a source on New antisemitism tying it back to the Doctor's plot? Jayjg (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps tangentially, but (i) Wistrich's article is hardly our most relevant source as regards the term's evolution, and (ii) it has nothing to do with the Commentary piece in any event. That said, I'd be willing to add something like "Wistrich traces this Soviet "anti-Jewism" back to the Slansky trial and "Doctor's Plot"" to the article, in either the main text or a footnote. Would this be acceptable? CJCurrie 00:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
O.K. Why don't you suggest an exact wording for the paragraph. Jayjg (talk) 01:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two small issues

George Soros recently wrote an article in the New York Review of Books criticising Aipac and putting forth the argument that some wrongly equate legitimate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. I haven't seen the original article, but a report on it in The Guardian is here, [28]. This might be a useful reference. Also, I suggest that the anti-Semitism infobox on the main article be moved much higher up the article that at presnet. Bondegezou 13:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Found it, original article here. He says various things of relevance to this article. There's a section on his views of anti-Semitism on his article. Bondegezou 13:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I read the essay (not an article, really) when it came out - my recollection is his argument is that AIPAC no longer serves Israel's best interests. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that Soros's views should be included in this article. CJCurrie 22:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
+1. The current issue of the New York Review includes a follow-up exchange between Soros and Alvin H. Rosenfeld, author of "'Progressive' Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism," regarding both men's essays; this is followed by a long letter from Independent Jewish Voices (IJV).--G-Dett 13:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History section

As we don't seem to be making any progress on the Commentary matter, I'll simply move forward with some more general suggestions for the History section.

Suggestion 1: Given that "New antisemitism" is defined as a concept rather than a phenomenon, we should begin the "History" section by presenting the first attempts to define the idea -- not by drawing attention to its first presumed manifestations.

To this end, the Taguieff paragraph should be either moved or restructured.

It is not clear from our current wording if the essays cited by Taguieff (Givet and Poliakov) actually discuss the concept of "New Antisemitism" in the way that the term is generally used today. In fact, the wording suggests that they were referring to a resurgence of classical antisemitism in a slightly altered format.

If Givet and Poliakov's essays are relevant to the concept of "NAS", we should cite them directly.

Those sections of the paragraph that have to do with Taguieff, and not with Givet and Poliakov, should be moved to a more chronologically appropriate place.

Suggestion 2: We should restructure the paragraph having to do with Forster and Epstein.

Notwithstanding its title, most of the Forster/Epstein book is actually not about "new antisemitism" as a concept. Instead, the book is focused on a diverse range of real and perceived anti-Semitic events from a wide array of sources. Some of these are related to Israel, and some are not.

It's not until the end of the book that the authors actually define the term:

But as the content of this book has demonstrated, there is abroad in our land a large measure of indifference to the most profound apprehensions of the Jewish people; a blandness and apathy in dealing with anti-Jewish behavior; a widespread incapacity or unwillingness to comprehend the necessity of the existence of Israel to Jewish safety and survival throughout the world.
This is the heart of the new anti-Semitism.

We, in turn, should make clear that this definition is central to their argument.

The Brownfield paragraph is appropriate as a rebuttal to Forster and Epstein. We should also consider adding a reference to Earl Raab's review of the book.

More to come later. CJCurrie 23:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why the Taguieff material wouldn't be relevant; it hardly seems any different from the arguments being made about New antisemitism in 2007. Regarding suggestion 2, I agree that the Forster/Epstein material is weak and mostly out-of-place, and it's not a "book length treatment of the subject", and its definition of "New antisemitism" seems sui generis; it's clear that the term "New antisemitism" has been used for various things, and if we're getting rid of "The New Anti-Semitism of the Soviet Union, which is a closer match (in my view) then this should go as well. It's also odd that Brownfield's "rebuttal" is longer than the material taken from the book. In any event, I think the whole thing should be removed, F/E isn't really about the topic, Brownfield is a political activists notable only for the volume of anti-Zionist material he produces, but little else. Jayjg (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
The Taguieff material is indeed relevant, but is currently out of its proper chronological context. I'm recommending its transfer, not its removal.
The Forster/Epstein book is relevant as regards the development of the term "new antisemitism". While their book is not a "full length treatment of the subject", their concluding association of "new antisemitism" with approaches toward Israel is entirely relevant to later interpretations of the term. CJCurrie 00:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Where would you suggest the Taguieff stuff go? Regarding F/E, this seems a bit of a double-standard; you insist their approach is "entirely relevant to later interpretations of the term", but won't give the Commentary piece the same latitude. Jayjg (talk) 00:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The Taguieff stuff (ie. the stuff that's actually about Taguieff's own perspective) should go in a post-2000 history section. I'll have more to say on that idea later. Concerning Forster and Epstein, I don't see this as a double standard. Most of the material in "The New Anti-Semitism" is unrelated to the modern concept, but manner in which the ADL authors define the term is entirely relevant for our purposes. The Commentary piece, by contrast, is linked only by a coincidence of language.
That being said, I'm open to the prospect of compromise. CJCurrie 00:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Regading Taguieff, he's drawing from older sources, isn't he? Regarding F&E, I think the issue here is that you see the most salient point about New antisemitism is that it's about Israel somehow, whereas others see the fact that it comes from the left as one of the defining features. If the whole book is about something else, and then at the very end they come up with a vaguely related new definition, how close is that? Jayjg (talk) 00:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I've argued that the older sources should be quoted directly, if they are in fact relevant. See above. Regarding F&E, I think a more relevant question might be "Have more recent studies of the concept identified the ADL book as a pivotal moment in the term's evolution"? The answer is clearly yes, whereas no-one has cited the Commentary article as relevant. In any event, the F/E definition of "NAS" is very consistent with the definition promoted by others after 2001. CJCurrie 01:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Regarding Taguieff, you're arguing that we should do some original research, rather than trusting what secondary sources have to say on the subject. Regarding the Commentary article, I see your point, though the connection of F&E to "New antisemitism" is only made in a very specific conspiracist narrative, and, as such, is at best disputed. Keep in mind that it is only in the "History" section as a straw man, for the purpose of debunking the notion; that's why the "rebuttal" is so much longer than the actual citation. It doesn't belong in the history of the notion itself, but in a section for rebuttals. Jayjg (talk) 01:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
(i) I'm suggesting that we should directly cite two essays from the late 1960s, on condition that these essays were actually written in response to the perceived phenomena under discussion. Is this now considered "Original Research"? (And if it is, shouldn't we remove Wistrich as well?), (ii) I'm afraid that "a very specific conspiracist narrative" is your own POV, as is your interpretation of the rationale for the F/E text's inclusion. CJCurrie 01:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
(i) Taguieff says these are examples of articles on "New antisemitism"; you say they are not. That, of course, is original research. I don't see how that would relate to Wistrich, who specifically talks about this phenomenon. (ii) I'm well aware of the history of that material's inclusion in the article, as well as the views of the people who included it. The only people today who reference that book as an example of "New antisemitism" are anti-Zionist activists, one notable, one basically non-notable (though, for some reason, still quoted at length here). Those anti-Zionist activists mention this book, which, as you point out, hardly deals with the concept we are talking about, because they are promoting a conspiracist narrative which has the ADL behind a plot to promote the idea that criticism of Israel is antisemitism. Jayjg (talk) 02:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
(i) You appear to have misread me. I have taken no position on whether or not the essays cited by Taguieff are in fact studies of "New antisemitism" (although, since we're on the subject, I might enquire as to why one author's opinion would make these two essays inherently relevant to our project). My suggestion is that we should bypass Taguieff entirely, and reference the essays on condition that they are relevant to the subject. (ii) Are you certain that Brownfield and Finkelstein are the only authors who have cited this book? I believe you may be forgeting something, (iii) no one has ever suggested that the ADL equates all criticism of Israel with antisemitism, but it's fairly clear that the organization regards anti-Zionism as inherently antisemitic. CJCurrie 02:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
(i) You are again suggesting that we bypass the work of a world-renowned expert in the area in favor of our own original research on the topic. We quote Taguieff because, as stated, he's a world-renowned expert in the area. (ii) Not the only ones; who are you referring to? (iii) Of course people are suggesting that the ADL equates all criticism of Israel with antisemitism. Jayjg (talk) 14:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
With respect, Jay, I don't believe it constitutes original research to include direct citations for two academic articles written in the late 1960s, assuming that the articles are both relevant and significant for the subject matter. Taguieff, for his part, is regarded by some as an expert and by others as a blinkered partisan; we shouldn't present his interpretation at face value. CJCurrie 06:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
But the only reason you want to include direct citations to these articles is because you disagree with Taguieff's conclusions; that's the very essence of original research, constructing a counter-argument using primary sources. Jayjg (talk) 19:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Under what definition would two academic essays on the 1967 Arab-Israeli war constitute "primary sources"? CJCurrie 00:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Almost anything can be a primary source, depending on the context. If you were to use the papers to try to refute Taguieff's arguments, then they would be primary sources. Jayjg (talk) 23:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I dont think people are suggesting that the ADL equates all criticism of Israel with antisemitism. The ADL routinely emphasizes that they do not equate legitimate criticism with antisemitism. The counter-argument (voiced in various forms by Klug, Finkelstein, Judt, and others) is that the ADL has defined "legitimate" so narrowly as to become something of a nullity. It's a serious argument about what constitutes "legitimate" criticism, a debate which is in turn at the heart of the debate about NAS. --G-Dett 15:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, you've lost me. An academic paper is a secondary source. Itsmejudith 07:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

No, whether or not something is a primary or secondary source depends on how it is used. For example, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy is a primary source as discussed in that article; that is, it is a primary source which has been subjected to a great deal of secondary analysis. If someone were to take a number of academic papers, and use them to draw a novel conclusion, then they would be using the papers as primary sources. Jayjg (talk) 23:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree, and I think that here we are coming to the heart of a misunderstanding about acceptable kinds of research in WP. In the real world outside WP an academic paper is a secondary source. People can ignore it, use it or misuse it, the paper is still what it started off as, an academic paper. The only time it might possibly be called a primary source is in the special case of research into research, which some people do in the real world. In that case the best solution is to avoid confusion by not referring to the primary/secondary distinction. (If you were researching encyclopedia development, a tertiary source would become your source material.) The second point you raise is separate. Taking academic papers and using them to draw a novel conclusion is not using them as primary sources. In real world academic research it is everyday bread and butter work, while in WP it is still "source research" but it may violate WP:POINT. There are some things in common in handling sources in both original research and source research: to respect the context in which the text was produced, to be aware of the author's intentions, and not to quote out of context to make a point. Itsmejudith 11:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Judith, is the Mishna a primary source or a secondary source? How about the Talmud; primary, secondary, or tertiary? How about the Rashi commentary on the Talmud; primary, secondary, tertiary, or quaternary? Jayjg (talk) 17:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Judith, I do not agree with your second point. When an academic draws on research done by others to reach a novel conclusion, it often means the earlier research has become a primary source. This is common in the sciences. In Woolgar and Latour's Laboratory Life they demonstrate how some articles that present novel arguments go through a history in which they are debated and argued and then gradually become established as "facts" that no one questions any longer - they are no longer arguments. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks but I'm not sure I understand your point. I was thinking more of the social sciences, where the primary/secondary source distinction is crucial. In the natural sciences, the raw material is likely to be experimental data, while a historian might work with an archive of letters and a political scientist with a set of interview transcripts. The experimental data could be called a "primary source", I suppose, but usually it isn't, it's just called "data". What's common to both kinds of investigation is that the researcher has to make explicit how their work is situated in relation to previous work in the same field. Therefore papers usually start with a literature review. This is usually conceived of as being a reading secondary sources. It is meant to be a fresh synthesis of that existing work and will be "novel" to some extent - possibly very novel if it is intended as a prelude to a complete overturning of a paradigm. There are some accepted ground rules in how these secondary sources should be treated. Credit should be given where it is due; authors should not be quoted out of context; throwaway comments should not be treated as if they were main conclusions, etc. etc. In WP we should respect all these rules and because we are not presenting original research, we have further responsibilities. In doing our source research we will necessarily come up with a new synthesis of material, but we should make sure that the general pattern we present reflects the state of the debate as far as possible and not introduce ideas of our own, since by doing that we might introduce bias. I still think that what Jayjg was talking about is the difficulty of doing source research - using secondary sources fairly - rather than treating secondary sources as primary ones. Itsmejudith 13:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Latour and Woolgar is a wok of social science by the way. The articles they are referring to are not articles called "data" but rather articles that present a certain interpretation of assay data. Their point is that when they are first published readers distinguish between the data and analysis, and one can document a rise in the number of articles that cite the original article, as they challenge the methods and analysis and often provide alternate interpretations of the data - but that in some cases after much argument and debate the interpretation of the original article is accepted as fact. For example, the claim that a certain gland produces a certain hormone or that a certain enzyme plays a certain role is not data but an interpretation of data ... but can oand often does become a "fact." Now, in the social sciences, I've seen plenty of lit. reviews (I mean, articles published in Annual reviews) that end up being treated by social scientists as primary sources because over time they are seen as important documents representing shifts in the history of a discipline. I think Jayjg's point was that we shouldn't get bogged down in the semantics of primary and secondary, but understand that how scholars view an article, and use it, can change - radically - over time. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I knew that Latour and Woolgar's book was a work of social science. I haven't read it (although I've read other bits by Latour and think I know where he's coming from). It is about the practice of science – research into research as I put it before. What you seem to be saying could perhaps be summarised as "science moves on". I don’t want to oversimplify your case, but to cut a long story short I can readily agree to that, and agree that it is important to recognise that how scholars view an article and use it does change. For WP purposes the important thing is to make good use of the most up-to-date research while taking more care with earlier work. In Islam-related articles some editors are relying on a book by A. S. Tritton, referring to its 1970 edition, although it was originally published in 1930. It is just plain out of date. And in articles related to Indian castes, editors are often trying to cite books from the period of British rule, even from the nineteenth century, that accord with their own PsOV. But what we're discussing here is this: C.J. Currie wants to refer to two academic papers. Jay accuses him of original research and says these are primary sources. That isn't fair. He can say the papers are out of date, or contradicted by other research, or that C.J wants to use them out of context. But are they primary sources in WP terms? We have to look at what this section is doing. We have all agreed that the article is about NAS as a concept not a phenomenon. (Therefore it doesn't include bans on kosher meat or the Mel Gibson incident as they are not specifically new AS.) So the History section is about the history of the concept. Are there enough good secondary sources that tell the history of the concept of New Antisemitism? If not, then do we have a justification for including such a section? Itsmejudith 15:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)