Talk:Universities and antisemitism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Universities and antisemitism is part of WikiProject Jewish history, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardized and up-to-date resource for all articles related to Jewish history.

If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, also consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Jewish history articles.
Project Jewish history To-do:
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on March 14, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] Recent Edits by 74.97.217.216

I reverted the edits made by 74.97.217.216 under the Canada and United States heading which seem to be borderline vandalism, the edit under the France heading does not seem to be vandalism but it is unsourced and possibly inaccurate. In general the article needs work in presenting a more general representation of antisemitism at universities in various countries, the present depictions seem to be narrowly focused and specific.--Wlf211 05:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] antisemitism and criticism

I am not seeing any attempt in this article to discuss the difference between criticism of Israeli policies (as regards internal and external policy regarding non-Jews) - which is a legitimate point of opinion - and antisemitic comment possibly derived from perceptions of Isreali policy. No mention is made of students often impassioned but naive acceptance of a position, in this and other cases. Whilst it is not in the scope of this article to mention other students, not necessarily Jewish, similarly zealous support for Israel there should, I feel, be some acknowledgement that dissatisfaction with Israel and its policies is not of itself antisemetic nor are all those expressing dissatisfaction (even extreme dissatisfaction) anti Jewish. I, of course, realise that those with an anti Jewish agenda find it easier to operate and disseminate their propoganda in such a climate. LessHeard vanU 23:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC) That, folks, is just how tough it can be to be a liberal - standards of freedom of speech and thought need be open for everyone, even those who would abuse it...

What, not even a discussion about a discussion? LessHeard vanU 21:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The silent treatment, perhaps... I too feel this article leaves out the fact that many young people (in Europe, at least) are highly critical to the policies of the Israeli government without necessarily being antisemitic (as in hate all things jewish or arabic), but spokespersons for Israeli embassies or jewish congregations are often quick to brand critics of Israeli policies as antisemites.

I see nobody wants to talk to me about it, so I will simply remove stuff from that doesn't seem to be anti-semitism. I repeat, criticism of Israel is not of itself anti-semitic! I realise that it is the Jewish State, and that anti-Israeli criticism is sometimes fostered by racist Jew baiters, but criticism (and subsequent demonstrations, etc.) is part of the democratic process. LessHeard vanU 22:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
On the above basis I removed a paragraph that spoke of Pro-Palestinian/Anti-Israeli demonstrations (as well as "alleged" participation by followers of an anti-semite). I suppose someone will rv it back... LessHeard vanU 20:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name and scope

First, this should be renamed to Academia and antisemitism. Second, we should cover older antisemitism in academia - for example, Nazis had even created an academic branch of antisemitism, see Walter Frank.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Are there any objections to the proposed move above?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Insofar that the perception of the phrase Academia may indicate the faculty (the lecturers, professorship, etc) rather than the students, which seems to be the focus of the current article, I would suggest caution rather than haste in applying your changes. Contrarily, I would also note that there seems to be a lack of response to much posted on this page so you may as well go ahead... Just be aware that you may get many reasons why you shouldn't have after the event. LessHeard vanU 00:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I would oppose that move. Most of the examples in the media are about students, who aren't part of "academia," but the professors and the students are all part of "universities." SlimVirgin (talk) 00:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV notice

I do not believe that the current article is in any way NPOV. I'm not opposed to documenting actual instances of on-campus anti-Semitism, but I'm more than a bit concerned about this page's casual linking of anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism, and with protests against Israeli politicians.

I also believe that we should reference Norman Finkelstein's position, that some reports of on-campus anti-Semitism are based on misrepresentation and have been raised for political ends. CJCurrie 01:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

By all means add a section on Finkelstein's views, so long as it's not the usual essay-length devotional piece. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree with CJCurrie on both counts. Even the title is misleading; it should probably be something like "Antisemitism and Anti-Zionism in Universities" or "University Antisemitism and Criticism of Israel." The lead is poorly written, consisting of a couple of quotes, seemingly collected at random, which don't establish or introduce the subject but instead simply refer to it. The article as a whole doesn't present the RS discussion/debate about campus antisemitism, which has been copious, vexed, and varied since 2001; rather it confines itself to just giving examples of a subject the transparency and obviousness of which it takes for granted. Combined with the many unsourced statements and a tone of complacent original research, this makes for an article that reads more like a pamphlet or community bulletin than an encyclopedia entry.--G-Dett 00:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
The title is not misleading. The article is about universities and antisemitism and the page is called "universities and antisemitism," which is kind of similar to the concept of articles about Saddam Hussein being called "Saddam Hussein" and articles about special relativity being called "Special relativity." I'd take your views about what's encyclopedic more seriously if you'd ever write any articles yourself. You're currently standing at 211 edits to articles in nine months. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Slim, nice to see you here and hear your latest thoughts, which are usually lively if not always logical and on-point. Thanks also for the update from your continuing hand-count of my daily edits. Some might call this harassment or stalking; I prefer to think of it as connoisseurial devotion, every bit as flattering as your eager anticipation of the articles I'll be writing myself.
Your post doesn't give much else to go on, but I do have a response and a question. You make the surprising argument that choosing the proper title for an article on a controversial issue like this is as easy and obvious and unproblematic as naming a biographical entry after its biographical subject, or using the name of a scientific theory for the title of an article on that theory. It isn't. A better analogy would be an article titled "Arab Despotism," or "Dictatorial Regimes With U.S. Backing." Titles that embed an argument within them. Get it?
I'm not sure how to read your silence about the lead. Do you think it's a good lead?
Lastly, let me add that I'd take your views about what's encyclopedic more seriously if you were able to defend them compellingly – without nonsense, sophistry, question-begging, or venting of personal resentments. Thanks.--G-Dett 14:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Netanyahu

I would like to restore this as I've found a source, but if I do it against the wishes of other editors, I could be reported for 3RR. I'm therefore checking here first whether it would be okay. There are multiple sources available, but I picked this one as it's a review of the film and it's written by someone at another university — Vincent-Linderoos, Cathy. "Review of Discordia: When Netanyahu Came to Town, a film by Ben Addelman and Samir Mallal. CM, Volume XI Number 3, University of Manitoba, October 1, 2004. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to this being included in the article, as long as it clearly indicates that the charge of anti-Semitism was disputed. CJCurrie 05:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Slim, is this source a good foundation for our article's assumption that the Netanyahu imbroglio represents campus antisemitism? It's not clear to me, for one thing, that Cathy Vincent-Linderoos is "someone at another university"; the link you've provided describes her as a retired elementary school teacher. The review she wrote was published by CM Magazine, which specializes in reviews "of materials of interest to teachers, librarians, parents and kids." (Vincent-Linderoos recommends Discordia for 11th-graders and up.) In your edit summary you write, "if you want to add that the antisemitism was denied, go ahead, but none of the sources say that, so I don't have a source for it." But Vincent-Linderoos doesn't assert that the Netanyahu incident reflects antisemitism; in fact she explicitly presents that question as a controversial one about which she is agnostic:

In watching and understanding the issues portrayed in this video, the viewer is required to consider questions like the following: 1) Is pro-Palestinian sentiment the same as anti-Semitism? 2) Why are some Jewish students in support of the pro-Palestinian contingent, whereas other Jewish students revere Netanyahu? 3) Why did the announcement of Benjamin Netanyahu's lecture inflame the passions of the pro-Palestinian students? 4) Is speaking out against Israeli policy the same thing as anti-Semitism? 5) Where did freedom of speech and assembly figure into this story? 6) Does the film slant toward one side's position or the other? 7) Why and how did the events at Concordia capture the attention of the international media? 8) How did the university administration's involvement figure into Discordia?

Where do you get the idea that this movie review supports the assertion of antisemitism but not its denial?

Again, does this represent a solid source for the assumption that the Netanyahu incident reflects campus antisemitism?--G-Dett 17:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

When I wrote this, I assumed that SlimVirgin was planning to include a reference to the Netanyahu protest as having been discussed within the context of debates over anti-Semitism within academia. Regretably, she has not done so. The current edit suggests that the Netanyahu protest was itself prima facie evidence of anti-Semitism, which it was not (the source document doesn't even make this claim). I'm serving notice that I plan to change this at the earliest opportunity.

I will not be amused if SlimVirgin uses her rather questionable "exemption" from the 3RR to claim her version as the default text. CJCurrie 22:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

CJ, pls don't be obtuse and legalistic. I have no idea what claiming the version to be the default means. You asked for a source that said the Netanyahu thing was regarded as antisemitic. I supplied one. What's the issue? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The sources you've provided do not identify the "Netanyahu thing" as anti-Semitic (and I noticed that you haven't actually identified it as anti-Semitic per se on the article page).
Anyway, I've found some newspaper sources dealing with the event, and will adjust the section as soon as I'm permitted. CJCurrie 00:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Why would you not be permitted? SlimVirgin (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
... under the restrictions imposed by the 3RR, is what I meant. CJCurrie 02:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
What the section needs to do is briefly relate the event (not recreate it journalistically with breathless quotes from shocked officials), and then say that some viewed the incident as evidence of campus antisemitism, while others disagreed.--G-Dett 00:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

What you need to do is quit being such a numb-nuts. --140.247.125.126

Hey Harvard, get yourself registered. Love, Numb-Nuts--G-Dett 17:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead

I think the lead needs serious work. There are two distinct problems, one relating to WP:NPOV and the other relating to WP:LEAD. There is no indication in the current lead that the reports are disputed, or that the discussion surrounding them is largely political. That's the NPOV problem. The LEAD problem is that the bulk of the lead is given over to two examples that do not give an effective overview of the topic. They seem to have been chosen for their rhetorical charge rather than any heuristic value or general representativeness. Both are very personal accounts of professors, the first a subjective impression and the second an anecdote. I don't think our lead should zoom in so rapidly from its topic sentence into individual quotations, full-stop. But if it is going to, then the quotations we use should be well-chosen analytical generalizations providing some kind of overview.

Here's a skeletal proposal of what I think would be a more comprehensive and encyclopedic lead:

Antisemitic incidents on university campuses across North America, Europe, and Australia have increased markedly since 2000, according to a number of sources. Though the circumstances surrounding the reported incidents are disputed, many maintain that campus activism supportive of the Palestinians and critical of Israel has become a breeding ground for the New Antisemitism, creating an atmosphere of anti-Jewish intimidation which erupts periodically in hate speech and even violence. Others acknowledge that antisemitic incidents have occurred, but contend that commentators have conflated political anger with ethnic or religious hatred in an attempt to chill legitimate debate.

Feedback would be welcome.--G-Dett 15:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I've said it elsewhere already: unless a decent review can be found to back up the article's thesis (that reports of antisemitic incidents at universities are increasing) it should not exist. Research papers are problematic - for any given thesis in the humanities there will be an assistant professor somewhere commenting on it in his bid for tenure.
Comments from journalists are right out. Regardless of what Faux News might want you to believe, the journalist's remit is to shape public opinion, not to comment on it. Dr Zak 23:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I think G-Detts' proposal as reasonable providing the rise in anti-semetic incidents can be referenced. I also don't believe that the context of anti-semetic incidents need be noted in the introduction (although obviously in the main body) as the link between anti-Israeli/pro-Palestinian (and/or other Arab group) sentiment is not established, nor forms part of the article heading. It is possible to be sympathetic to both the Israeli and Palestinian people, and to to be be anti (some) Israeli policy and pro Jewish, and lastly to be vehemently anti anti-semetic. I am. LessHeard vanU 13:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with both LessHeard vanU and Dr Zak that the sourcing of the reported rise in campus antisemitism is crucial. That's one of the things my rewritten lead attempts to address.
It would be great to get further feedback, especially from other editors and especially in the form of concrete suggestions. After another day or so, I'll make the change. --G-Dett 19:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that the subject heading should be included in the first sentence, suitably highlighted, as is common WP practice. I'm just not able to construct said sentence to be in keeping with the rest of the paragraph.... LessHeard vanU 12:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is an article lead the ideal place for impressions, anecdotes, and sensational rhetoric?

Slim, I explained here and here why I removed impressionistic anecdotes – which appear to have been selected at random – from the lead. You keep restoring them, saying only that you "disagree."[1] Can you elaborate a little on your reasoning here? I want to avoid an edit war at all costs.--G-Dett 15:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I recently attempted to move both paragraphs from the introduction to the section that concerns reported events in America. My rationale is that both paragraphs concern reported events in America.
I was reverted within minutes. Could someone please identify the flaw in my logic? CJCurrie 16:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
It's good to have some quotes in the lead to show who is saying what, unlike the "some say this, others say that" tone of the first paragraph. By all means add some counter-balancing quotes. As a compromise, I removed one, so you need only find one other as balance. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I can find a balancing quote, but my objection has less to do with WP:NPOV than with WP:LEAD.--G-Dett 17:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
It's a terribly unhelpful citation. Instead of making clearer what the positions in the debate are and why people hold those positions we learn that some people are upset. Yes, you'd predict that, wouldn't you? Dr Zak 23:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Source needed

Could we have a source for: "Others acknowledge that antisemitic incidents have occurred, but dispute the extent of them, and contend that commentators have conflated political anger with ethnic or religious hatred in an attempt to chill legitimate debate." SlimVirgin (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll provide a source before the week's end. CJCurrie 16:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
The Nation article cited in the U.S. section is the source. There are many others if needed.--G-Dett 17:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'Jewish Federation of Northeastern Pennsylvania'

According to LessHeard vanU, this is biased, but is still somehow acceptable as a 'published source recording an event'. Wikipedia requires reliable sources, not raving editorial screeds with no reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I have removed the anecdotes for the third time as they are inadequately sourced and inflammatory, serving no clear purpose.--Nydas(Talk) 20:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The JFNP may well be biased, and not as reliable as some, but they fulfill the requirement of a published source and there are no "more reliable" references available, either supporting or dissenting. I was not there, but I am inclined to believe that the events happened and that the people quoted said what they said; has the JFNP been sued for libel? Can you give examples on misinformation? Unless it can be stated (and cited) that the events and/or comments were fiction or misrepresentation then they fulfil WP's criteria. Since we are referencing that source the possibly emotive quotations are justified as reportage, although perhaps a general overview of the statements would be better with the reader being able to click the link.
Wikipedia does allow biased sources anyway, as US Treasury figures are used in articles regarding the US economy and record company sales records for their artists. Do you believe them to be the most reliable and free from influence?
I shall not revert you, as I don't do revert wars, but it is likely to be re-added by other persons (along with the usual anti Israeli/pro Arab comment = anti semitism nonsense). If there are no better or more reliable sources for the events, which have happened, then the JFNP fulfills WP's criteria as a source. LessHeard vanU 21:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
(Um... my edit summary meant to say that the JFNP hasn't been proven as unreliable... oh, well! LessHeard vanU 21:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC))
You haven't cited any policies or guidelines, and you cannot seriously think that government or corporate figures compare to a self-published editorial article from five years ago. For politically charged issues, one does not prove a dodgy source incorrect, but finds corroboration from multiple, credible alternative sources. If corroboration does not exist, then the material should not be included.--Nydas(Talk) 21:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
From WP:ATT

Primary and secondary sources....Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge.

I have read the rest of the section, and those above, regarding reliable sources and I don't believe that it is proven that either JFNP is inherently unreliable (I cannot comment on their editorial control nor your contention that it is a self-published work) or that the incidents did not happen nor the individuals said what they did. Your interpretation of politically charged seems to question the validity of the comments, whereas I believe the term would cover whether the comments were made (fact over bias). As previously suggested, I believe the gist of the comments could be reported with a link for anyone who cares to read further.
FYI, I would usually take the word of a self published enthusiast/zealot over the soundbites and interpretations of Treasury Officials and Record Company Execs any day. The zealot is usually an amateur liar at best... ;~) LessHeard vanU 22:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Your mistake is believing that sources must be 'proved' unreliable. That is not supported by any Wikipedia policy, otherwise we'd be swamped with 'sources' from fringe websites. This source has no indication of editorial oversight or fact-checking, and is heavily dependent on personal opinion and rumour.--Nydas(Talk) 08:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I have been to the site in question, and perused the home site of the author Mark Silverberg. I can see that it is a self published site with no independant editorial control. However, the author appears to be an accredited professional in his field, of some standing, and has posted reviews of his material. That the site is biased is undoubted, and that those reviews come from sympathetic bodies is obvious. It appears that Mr Silverberg puts a pro Israeli/Jewish (vehemently anti Arab/Muslim) slant on major topics relating to Middle East matters and other subjects. I see nothing that indicates that the facts are misrepresented or fiction. As such, as a source for facts (not interpretation, though) it is reliable. In the absence of any better source, it should stay. LessHeard vanU 11:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Where does this facts/interpretation dichotomy come from? I have never heard of such a thing on Wikipedia before. The 'not proven untrue' standard you are applying isn't a Wikipedia policy, at least partly because Wikipedia deals with verifiability, not truth.--Nydas(Talk) 10:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm talking about editorial judgement; If Mr Silverberg noted an anti-Semite demonstration involving individuals chanting insults to Jews I would have no problem in using that information in that article, but I would not include his assertion that it was part of a arab financed strategy designed to undermine western democracy. My judgement is that the reportage side of that source is reliable, but not his interpretation of the how and why of the event.
I see we are not going to agree on the standard of verifiability of a single source. My position is that one publication quoting several involved people who are saying much the same thing happened at one event, then that one source (as it is the only source) should be considered reliable. Sometimes there will only be the one record of an event and, in the absence of any challenge, it is the default source. As long as the bona fides seem okay, it is then a reliable resource.LessHeard vanU 15:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The source (which is scarcely a 'publication') does not quote several involved people talking about one event. It is a laundry list of unsourced anecdotes compiled by someone with every reason to exaggerate or misrepresent, failing all our guidelines of what makes a reliable source. There seems to be absolutely no basis in Wikipedia policy or guidelines for your counter-arguments.--Nydas(Talk) 11:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

(undent) You know what? I think I'm going to concede on this one. The page isn't good enough, though the home page would have been okay if that had been source. Likewise, if the relevant publication that was the source were mentioned/linked in the cited page (so it could be checked out) it would have been sufficient. My points about singular sources for fact still hold, I feel (although you will doubtless still disagree), but the paucity of the linked page does not help. I doubt that User:Slimvirgin will agree to the paragraphs being removed, so perhaps the two of you might want to talk some more about it before getting into a cycle of deleting and reverting... LessHeard vanU 21:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Duke, Holocaust deniers etc.

If David Duke broke into your house he would be guilty of breaking and entering. He may be charged with burglary. The fact that he is anti Jewish is irrelevent. Only when he breaks into a house and daubs a race/religion hate message is his anti-semite background relevant.

He may participate anti Israeli demonstrations, and he may produce leaflets that support Palestinians (none of which is illegal, BTW). The fact that he himself is anti Semite is irrelevant, since demonstrating against Israel or supporting Palestinians is not de facto anti semitism. Unlike the following paragraphs in the section there is no evidence of anti Jewish abuse and behaviour. It is therefore not relevant to the article subject.

It is not WP's place to interpret motive, but only to provide examples. LessHeard vanU 12:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and the source provided it because he's a notorious anti-Semite being allowed to operate on-campus; ditto with the Holocaust denier that you keep removing too. Or are you saying Holocaust deniers may not be anti-Semites? SlimVirgin (talk) 12:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe that a Holocaust denier could not be anti-Semetic. From the brief time I spent at David Duke's article he is undeniably anti-Semetic. Either party participating at an anti-Israeli demonstration is likely to do with their anti-Semetic stance. However, and this is the point I am trying to make, it doesn't necessarily follow that the demonstration against the policies of the Israelis is of itself anti Semitic.
If the demonstration includes acts of anti-Semitism in the manner of language, banners and targeted assaults then it falls within the scope of this article. If it is a protest against the actions and/or policies then it doesn't. The only anti Israeli protest that would fall under the heading of anti-Semite would be that of the existence of the State of Israel, otherwise it is a politically derived protest.
As for "...being allowed..." access, racists and anti-Semites have the same rights as other citizens. As long as there is no legal reason to keep them away then they have the right to participate in "peaceful assemblies". That is both the problem and beauty of democracy, the right to free expression of thought (within the law) no matter how reprehensible that thought may be.
In a nutshell, David Duke and Holocaust deniers are anti-Semitic. Their participation, however, in an anti Israeli demonstration does not make the event anti-Semitic, and should not be included in this article. If they participate in anti-Semitic activity at an anti-Israeli demonstration, then those incidents can be included (but that doesn't include distributing a pro-Palestinian leaflet, as supporting the Palestinian is not an anti-Semitic act.) Anti-Semitism and anti-Israeli sentiment are seperate matters. LessHeard vanU 20:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I've been thinking further about your comment regarding DD's being permitted access to campus'. If he were invited by the members of the faculty or a student group who are aware of his views then his attendance is evidence of anti-Semitic sentiment, although I would still suggest that the event may not be and it is incorrect to write of the event in those terms in the article. If he just turns up, uninvited, and hands out leaflets that contain no anti-Semite material (even though his intent is to enflame hatred for Jews and/or the Jewish state) then my position remains as above. If the leaflets contain anti-Semite (rather than anti Israel) language then this does need to properly cited, and the leaflet dropping rather than the protest at which it happened regarded as the anti-Semite act. LessHeard vanU 23:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Walter Frank

Not sure why this is under see also? If he is relevant, maybe put him into the article for reference. Anyways,--Tom 19:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Reasonable, I suppose, in that he was an Academic in Nazi Germany who taught anti-Semite theory. I'll put it in.LessHeard vanU 20:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No source for the first sentence?

This is a pretty serious problem. Does anyone have a source?--G-Dett 15:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I was going to say, "It is covered in the article" but I realised it isn't. Perhaps the lead should be amended to "evidence of anti-semitism" until a decent cite can be found? LessHeard vanU 20:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
But we'd still have the problem of citation, no?--G-Dett 21:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Er, wouldn't the examples (which are cited) in the body of the article be sufficient? The intro is only that, it shouldn't replicate the full article.LessHeard vanU 21:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, now I think I see what you're saying. So how would the revised first sentence read?--G-Dett 21:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
How about

Evidence of antisemitic incidents on university campuses across North America, Europe, and Australia have increased markedly, since 2000, according to have been recorded by a number of sources.

(original text struck through, added text in bold)? The evidence is presented in the body of the article. As commented, if a cite can be found for an increase it can be returned to the intro and should also be expanded upon in the main text. LessHeard vanU 22:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Looks great. "Evidence...has been recorded." --G-Dett 22:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Cool. You are the grammarian, you write it! (big grin!) LessHeard vanU 22:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if that sounded pompous LessHeard vanU. (sheepish grin...)--G-Dett 17:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Columbia University Middle Eastern Studies Case

The whole academic freedom debate at Columbia needs to be added to this article. There was significant harassment of students that professed any proIsrael views by their professors; most sources acknowledge that these attacks bordered on antisemitism; see Dershowitz for the full explication of that viewpoint.

The Columbia case and various other recent campus anti-Semitism cases are also discussed in both the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights' 2006 report on Campus Anti-Semitism, which is downloadable from www.usccr.gov, as well as in my recent article on "Anti-Zionism as Racism: Campus Anti-Semitism and the Civil Rights Act of 1964," which appears in this February's issue of the William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal http://www.wm.edu/so/borj/volumes/15/vol15iss3.html. Klmarcus 20:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

If you wanted to add the usccr.gov link, with a brief overview, that would be great. I don't think you should add your own article (possible conflict of interest) but if you add "see talkpage" to your edit summary a third party might review it and decide to add it in themselves. LessHeard vanU 21:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed unsourced history section

This section also seemed out of place in relation to the rest of the article. Thanks, --Tom 16:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair 'nuff... LessHeard vanU 19:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Msa sfsu poster.jpg

Image:Msa sfsu poster.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)