Talk:New antisemitism/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Bourne

Pertn, Bourne is not a notable enough source to be used in the lead section, and unless she has something new to say about it, not anywhere else either. She's an unknown sociologist who specializes in feminism. Look at all the excellent potential sources in the Further reading section whose material is not referenced in the lead section, or anywhere else in the case of some of them. You'll have to make a case as to why Bourne's book review is better than any of those. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I used the source as an example. (I tried to explain to you earlier why it was hard to source the lack of scolarly interest in the concept.) It is a review of one of the key books promoting the idea of NAS. It is in a well known publication (Race and class). Published by a major publisher. She works for a well known research institute, dedicated to studies racism. (and we do agree that there is some semblance between Anti-Semitism and racism, don't we?). She is jewish, and has published several anti-zionist articles. As for the researcher specializing in feminism, I think someone else mentioned earlier here that it's probably a case of mistaken identity (JB Taylor), though JB has also published something about feminism and jewish identity and so on.

"Jenny Bourne is researcher into race policy at the Institute of Race Relations and the author of Homelands of the mind: Jewish feminism and identity politics (IRR, 1987)." [1]

Anyway, she is not one that must be quoted (who are really?) and I don't subscribe to all her opinons. Maybe it shouldn't be in the lead section, though I feel it is a bit out of balance... Maybe I should try to make another compromise to get a more balanced article here. But something tells me that would be time wasted. I'll not interfere anymore pertn 18:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, did you really read what BHuston wrote about her in the "critics that should be added" section? pertn 11:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Pertn - it may be time to use start the dispute resolution process. SlimVirgin on this article has established herself as a de facto gatekeeper. If she has decided against you here, which seems likely, you can either fight it out in an edit war (which is not recommended) or you can start the dispute resolution process. The first step is to seek an outside opinion via the RfC mechanism. I would suggest writing up a draft of exactly what you want to include and specify where. Make it it's own section here on the talk page and then request an outside opinion stating that the discussion has reached a stalemate. There are not two separate sets of rules, one for SlimVirgin and one for the rest of us, she just is being aberrant here. --Ben Houston 02:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I partly agree with you, but I also respect the fact that she and other editors have a better knowledge of the material cited here and the rules of WP than me. So I think I'll leave it there, and assume that they know what they are doing, and that they're doing it in good faith. Saves a lot of work as well. :) pertn 07:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

MLK letter to an anti-zionist friend

I think this may be a hoax. It is cited to http://christianactionforisrael.org/antiholo/ml_king.html. At the bottom of that page it says "From M.L. King Jr., "Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend," Saturday Review_XLVII (Aug. 1967), p. 76. Reprinted in M.L. King Jr., "This I Believe: Selections from the Writings of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr."" I can't find anything about this book, and some other websites (of uncertain reliability themselves) say that though he expressed the sentiment in a speech, there was no such letter. Maybe someone else can find out for sure. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

This isn't my area of specialty, but it doesn't seem that relevant to "New Anti-Semitism" but rather either Anti-Semitism or Anti-Zionism. Maybe people working on those articles would be more knowledgeable about it. Also you could ask on the MLK Jr article talk page if his article doesn't already mention this letter of his. If it is a hoax as you are claiming, that should be noted on the MLK Jr article or elsewhere so that people don't have to repeatedly establish that. --Ben Houston 02:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a brief discussion of the letter on the MLK talk page. The letter is almost certainly a hoax, but the quote “When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You're talking anti-Semitism” is not. If someone is looking to include that quote within the article it can be backed by multiple sources independent of the letter.EricR 01:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

CAMERA, a pro-Israel organization, [2] says it's a hoax so it almost certainly is one. Deuterium 03:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

RfC

Sticking to the narrow question as expressed in the RfC, I'd regard a blogger for a respected news source as about the equivalent to a columnist for a respected news source. Hence, satisfactory for WP:V and WP:RS although not the most desirable citation and prone to supplanting by better sources such as academic experts. Durova 17:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I agreed, and would like to add that an RfC on this issue is entirely in order. --Xosa 19:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Now the question is wether or not the name of the artist (Senay Dennis) should be included in the caption to faciliate readers' ability to find out more about his art and viewpoints? This information is already included on the image so including it in the caption would just reduce a click for readers. Ideally who the artist is who the organizer of the event the image is associated with (A.N.S.W.E.R.) and who is saying it is an example of new anti-Semitism should be readlily available to the reader. In particular who is saying the image is anti-Semitic should be included so that the article doesn't fall afoul of WP:BLP relative to the artist Senay Dennis. (ŮNetscott) 20:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You have become obsessed with this caption and image. For the record, you're continuning to try to have it deleted on the grounds that it still doesn't fit the image policies, though it clearly does. You put up an RfC on whether to include ANSWER in the caption, even though we know the artist's name and we have no evidence at all that he's connected to ANSWER. Furthermore, ANSWER were not the only organizers of this protest.

I have contacted the artist to ask him inter alia whether, and if so how, he wants to be credited in the caption. Until I have an answer from him, please leave the issue alone. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Can we ask what might be the reason that an editor might want to contact an artist to get his/her permission to be credited for their art on this article? (ŮNetscott) 22:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, why don't you read that question to yourself to see if the answer isn't self-evident? --Leifern 00:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Why not give it a few days and see if the artist answers? There is no deadline. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

User:SlimVirgin is very cognizant of the very real concerns there are here about the artist Senay Dennis with regards to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons right down to changing the name of the image she originally uploaded from Image:NewASAnti-Semiticposter.jpg to Image:AntiWarRallyFeb162003.jpg. This is further illustration that the edits I speak of above are very necessary. (ŮNetscott) 01:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The only reason I can think of for getting in touch with the poster's creator would be to find out his intent in making the drawing, there is no need to get his permission to post the photo here. I have said this countless times but I'll say it again, from a legal standpoint Senay Dennis doesn't even enter the equation, the permission of the person who took the photograph is all that matters.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg, yes that is understood but Wikipedia is not following the direction of the legal advisor you've spoken with but by its own policies. (ŮNetscott) 01:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

That's right, and Wikipedia's policies are not equivalent to your idiosyncratic interpretation of them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Avoiding idiosyncratic interpretation of policy applies to everyone. --Xosa 14:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

So does not trolling. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Length

The article is getting long, so it might be a good idea to discuss which sections we might be able to remove. Do people have any ideas about that? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

My first option would be to remove the sections that aren't about NAS. // Liftarn

And they are? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Old anti-Semitism and muslim anti-Semitism. // Liftarn

Do you mean the section called "The far right and Islamism?" If so, that's impossible. Please be serious. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't suggest we should move an entire section, but trim (and possibly move) parts that are not about NAS. // Liftarn

Which parts of that section do you think are not about NAS? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

We could move everything that is strictly anti-Zionist (like the David Duke speech) to the Anti-Zionism article. As a Jew who is against Zionism, I hate the idea of people associating me with Zionists. Anti-Semitism is an irrational hatred of a particular bloodline. Anti-Zionism is an understandable hatred of people who employ usury, political manipulation, redefinition of language and antisocial business practices to enslave those outside of their tiny group. Jews and Zionists are not the same thing. --Xosa 14:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Quoting Xosa -- "Anti-Zionism is an understandable hatred of people who employ usury, political manipulation, redefinition of language and antisocial business practices to enslave those outside of their tiny group." This is the language of classic and shameful anti-semitism, a precise example of the phenomenon the article discusses. Jlockard 18:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not the language is shameful, it isn't aimed at Semites, so how could it be "anti-Semitism?" I certainly wasn't talking about myself. I've never employed usury, political manipulation, redefinition of language or antisocial business practices in my life, yet I'm a Semite. That's my whole point, and one of the points of David Duke: Jews don't do these things as a rule. We are good, hard-working people who give to greater society as much as we take. Saying that everyone who opposes Zionism also opposes Jews is incorrect and defamatory. --Xosa 00:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Folks while it might be a bit understandable to talk about these issue generally, Wikipedia talk pages are not here to serve such a purpose. I would kindly request that the discussion remain specific about article content and editing. Thanks. (→Netscott) 00:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Who was it aimed at then, and who is practicing "usury"? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Zionists practice usury. I think they call it "banking." But Netscott is right; as this relates to the article, I think several things can be taken out or moved to the anti-Zionism page. For instance, David Duke specifically says that he isn't talking about Jews; his arguments are directed only toward Zionists. I don't think something like that could be any more clear. --Xosa 00:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Zionists practice usury? Huh? Is it only Zionists? Do Zionists practice usury more than other, um, "peoples"? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Is that a rhetorical question, or would you really like to know? --Xosa 17:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls, Jay. CJCurrie 03:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I thought. --Xosa 17:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Trying again

It would be good if we could discuss this seriously. There's some material it would be nice to add at some point e.g. a debate between Brian Klug and Robert Wistrich, [3] but the article is currently so long I hesitate to add anything. I would like to get rid of (1) the ritual slaughter section, which I feel is weak and arguable; (2) the media and cartoons section, which I also feel is weak as written; and (3) the other commentators section (they should either be incorporated into the text or not mentioned, in my view, and the ones I feel don't need to be mentioned are Natan Sharansky and Michael Neumann. Any thoughts? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I have given up editing this article, but I agree with your proposed changes. 1) agree completely 2)agree. Being Norwegian, I feel that the short remarks about "norwegian media" are more likely to create confusion than anything else. The facts are (almost) correct, but the complete lack of context only makes it weird. I think the whole Media-section could be removed. 3) I am not sure about how to handle this. I feel the critizism of the concept is now mainly linked to radical characters like finkelstein and chomsky in the article as it is now. pertn 08:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Pertn. We do have criticism from non-radical commentators too (for the want of a better expression) e.g. Brian Klug and Steven Zipperstein. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The most obvious candidate for removal is the section on ritual slaughter: "Since the 1930s, Norway, Denmark, and Sweden have banned shechita[...]The Swiss banned kosher slaughter in 1902 [...]The bans are seen by some commentators as part of a "new wave of ugly, and sometimes violent, anti-Semitism sweep[ing] through the European continent."

Beside the other two sections listed by SlimVirgin, I would also take a look at Academia. Not that it should be removed, but it could be made shorter ("anti-Zionist graffiti appeared on the sidewalk"). --Denis Diderot 00:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Slim, I think your suggestion is reasonable. Probably we can move the discussion of whether the banning of ritual slaughter is anti-Semitic to the article on ritual slaughter (if it isn't already well covered there). The core of the NAS thesis is that anti-Semitism masks as anti-Zionism and that anti-Zionism encourages anti-Semitism: given that, it seems quite a stretch to discuss bans on ritual slaughter in this article. - Jmabel | Talk 23:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The point is not whether opposing ritual slaughter is anti-Semitic but whether it's seen to be so and parituclarly whether it's seen to be part of a "new wave" of anti-Semitism. Clearly, from the sources provided in the section, it is. As Jayjg said earlier:

It's entirely possible that the pretext given for banning kosher slaughter was preventing cruelty to animals; regardless, this is an article about New anti-Semitism. Thus, it reports what various sources discussing New (or contemporary) anti-Semitism have said on the subject. If you have some examples of people saying "the bans on kosher meat slaughter were not an example of modern anti-Semitism because..." that's great. But you certainly can't state as fact (as you have done) that prevention of cruelty to animals was the reason for the bans, nor can you argue with the sources based on your own feelings or beliefs about the incident. It pains me to have to say this yet again, but please review WP:NOR, particularly the part that excludes stuff if "It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position." Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 14:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

As I recall, several of the books on New Anti-Semitism refer to the anti-ritual slaughter campaign in Europe. If experts on New anti-Semitism cite the bans on kosher slaughter we would be remiss not to do so in this article. Farnsworth J 00:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you say which books? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to get to the library on Thursday. Farnsworth J 21:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

J Farnsworth, it has been 10 days since you said this, and you still haven't brought any of the books that refer to the anti-ritual slaughter campaign in Europe as "New anti-Semitism" as opposed to plain old "anti-Semitism". Unless you can find some sources for that, I'm going to have to agree with the consensus here. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Copy edit

I'm going to go through this at some point, maybe today, and try to tighten up the writing in order to shorten the length. I'll be looking out for repetition, any laboring of points, that kind of thing. I may also try to weave the Chomsky/Finkelstein arguments at the end into the main text, and if I do, I want to remove the critics/proponents section entirely.

If I remove something you disagree with, please bear with me rather than reverting, because I may end up reinserting it elsewhere.

I'll put the copy edit tag up so you'll know when I've started and finished. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I've tidied it a little; between this and the copy edit a few days ago, it's 24 kilobytes shorter. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Good work! Jayjg ^(talk) 17:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Meme?

This sentence's got to go: "The meme of a Zionist mastermind controlling the world's economy has been apparent during anti-globalization protests." The "meme" is a highly controversial concept scientifically. Also the use of the term "meme" implies the POV opinion that such ideas are "replicated". Thus the sentence reinforces the idea of a new virus-like spread of ideas amongst the anti-globalists. It is not referenced. In general, one should beware of the idea of a meme because it is a quite weak scientific concept, but even more because it is easy to use to stereotype the ideas of your opponents.pertn 11:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

How about "persistent anti-Semitic motif"? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

much better pertn 19:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind which we say, but there's nothing wrong with "meme." It's not a scientific concept. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Left-bashing

We've been through this before, but I see that the current version has, in the lead paragraph "held to be associated with certain left-wing political views." I wouldn't have any problem even with "held to be sometimes associated with certain left-wing political views," (emphasis just to point out the edit, I'm not asking for italics in the article) but the statement as it stands suggests that "New" anti-Semitism is supposed to be strictly a phenomenon of the Left. Clearly this is not the case. Many of the cited Arab examples are not particularly "Left"; David Duke is about as far from Left as you can get. - Jmabel | Talk 20:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Right-wing anti-semitism wouldn't be new though, would it? Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that's the point, which is also made in the lead; "classic" anti-Semitism has typically come from right-wing or fundamentalist religious sources. According to the sources, one of the main things that is "New" about New anti-Semitism is that it also comes from the left, which has traditionally opposed anti-Semitism. The other new thing about it is the odd alliance of unlikely bedfellows; the far left aligning with far rightists (like Duke) and fundamentalist Muslims. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

If you took the left out of new anti-Semitism, there'd be nothing new about it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

If we are to include David Duke in the article, then "sometimes associated with certain left-wing political views" would be more appropriate. CJCurrie 01:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that it's more than sometimes. The presence of the left is both a necessary and a sufficient condition. The Islamists and David Dukes could become Judeophiles tomorrow, but if the left continued, we'd still have new anti-Semitism. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

In the first place, you should be aware by now that the premise of a "new anti-Semitism" is not agreed upon by all parties. Please don't assume the reality of the concept when discussing usage of the term.

Regardless of whether it refers to anything in the world, we can still say what the concept is. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Second, if NAS-proponents interpret an alliance between David Duke and radical Islam as a credibile manifestation of the concept, then the presence of the left is plainly not a necessary condition. CJCurrie 02:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

They don't. Were it only the far right and Islamists, a new concept would likely not have developed. Of course, we'll never know. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your first point, there is almost nothing that is "agreed upon by all parties", including anti-Semitism itself; for the purposes of this page, it's reasonable enough to discuss the phenomenon in the way the various reliable sources discuss it. Regarding your second point, on top of SlimVirgin's cogent point, alliances between Nazis and Islam are not entirely new; see, for example, Mohammad Amin al-Husayni. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Btw, whatever happened to the revised introduction we were working on a while ago? CJCurrie 02:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't quite right. We need to find wording that gives due emphasis, or else that quotes one of the main thinkers. I'd prefer the latter, but you didn't like the idea of quoting someone. I think the kaleidoscope quote sums it up, for example. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It's odd that you didn't raise any objections at the time. The revised version may not be perfect, but it's still much better than the current wording.

Could I suggest putting the revised version into place now, and making further adjustments if and as required? (For what's it's worth, I'd be willing to accept the "kaleidoscope" quote now if we make it clear that this represents only one interpretation of the term.) CJCurrie 02:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Let me tweak it around a little. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Here's the link I was looking for. Is there any reason why we can't substitute this for the current version? CJCurrie 02:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

There is an obvious assumption here, when anyone uses the word anti-semitic, everyone knows it reffers to hatred towards jews and most left-wing groups have nothing against jews, but against Israel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.215.169.199 (talk • contribs)

Big assumption. Who says that the left wing is immunized from bigotry? --Leifern 17:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's the draft intro that CJCurrie and I have discussed. I'd personally like to see more emphasis on the left as they're the key to the concept of new anti-Semitism but this intro treats them as equal to the far right and Islamism. However, I can't see how to tweak it in that direction without going too far. Do any of the regular editors of the page object to this intro being inserted? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and inserted it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

McShane report

I don't know, Ben. You pick out the absolute key aspect, for the purposes of this article and for that section in particular, of the newspaper article about the McShane report, namely the alleged left/Muslim alliance — and those are the very words you choose to delete.

I wouldn't bother fiddling with it. The report itself will be released soon and then we'll have more material. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin - you are acting based on prejudice. SlimVirgin? The next sentence says far-left and Islamist and I didn't delete that one -- thus your claim above is just sort of strange. If you read the article, the use of criticism of Israel as pretext was mentioned in the context of the left and the boycott in particular. My summary is more accurate than what was there -- you converted a nuanced statement in the original source that some criticism was acceptable and that only sometimes was criticism used as a pretext to spreading anti-Semitism to a simple over-generalizing statement that the left and the Islamists use criticism of Israel as a pretext to spreading anti-Semitism. From my perspective you removed a whole lot in your version. --Ben Houston 08:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's important to retain the allegation that the left and Muslim extremists are using criticism of Israel as a pretext, which is one of the main topics of this article. Yet that's the part you've decided to remove. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

In regards to your second statement: I didn't remove that criticism of Israel was used as a pretext -- check the edit history. You are behaving strangely. --Ben Houston 08:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You removed the words "... accuses left-wing activists and Muslim extremists of using criticism of Israel as a "pretext" for spreading anti-Semitism." This is from the Observer. There is no need for you to change it. You are not the source.

I'm sick and tired of you accusing me of prejudice and of acting "emotionally" or "based on my feelings," which you've never explained, so I'm going to say this once and once only. Take careful note. I care ONLY that articles are well-written, sourced to intelligent sources, and informative. I don't actually care if the sources are left-wing, right-wing, no-wing, Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Hindu, none of the above. I would like editors to read serious sources, and then use them properly, quoting them carefully, attributing carefully, reflecting carefully what they say. That's what I try to do myself. I don't always succeed, but I do always try. Do not accuse me again of doing anything else. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Your accusation about me removing that phrase is simple wrong -- you need to check the diff of my edit, which you can do here: [4]. To be completely specific, I changed the phrase:

"and accuses left-wing activists and Muslim extremists of using criticism of Israel as a 'pretext' for spreading anti-Semitism" (emphasis added)

to this similar and more nuanced phrase:

""The report, while it emphasized the right to criticize or protest against Israeli government actions, states that criticism of Israel sometimes 'provided a pretext' for spreading anti-Semitism" (emphasis added)

Both versions mentioned criticism of Israel as providing a pretext for spreading anti-Semitism. The original source actually says this:

"Though emphasising the right of people to criticise or protest against Israeli government actions, it says 'rage' over Israeli policies has sometimes 'provided a pretext' for anti-semitism." (Original)

Check for yourself. I have inserted almost the exact sentence from the source into the article -- it may need quotes around it now though. From my perspective, you are accusing me of distorting the source because I quoted it more accurately. That does seem strange to me. --Ben Houston 08:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Ben, you removed the phrase left-wing activists and Muslim extremists from the article, which was, of course, the whole reason the article was referenced in the section about the left. The newspaper report itself states, in its very first sentence

A group of prominent MPs, alarmed at the rise of anti-semitism in Britain, will accuse some left-wing activists and Muslim extremists this week of using criticism of Israel as 'a pretext' for spreading hatred against British Jews.[5]

Your change was not "similar and more nuanced"; rather, it was "POV pushing and whitewashing". To remove the phrase in the first place was bizarre enough; to then continually claim you had not removed it, goes beyond bizzare, into the realm of the absurd. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg? You are accusing me of removing something I didn't remove -- please note clearly that I didn't modify the sentence in the summary that reads: "McShane described what he called a 'witch's brew' of anti-Semitism involving the far left and 'ultra-Islamist' extremists." Your claim that I, an in attempt at "POV and whitewashing", removed the connection between left-wing and Islamists from the summary is simple wrong and shows that you haven't even read the short summary of the article that we are discussing.

Why not actually talk about what the actual issue is instead of engaging in hysterics? I used a nuanced sentence within the article as the basis of my summary while you are proposing using simpler take on things that is used in the lead paragraph. That said, I still didn't remove either of the two core claims that you and SlimVirgin have just accused me of removing. --Ben Houston 18:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Look at your edit. You removed the phrase left-wing activists and Muslim extremists. This, in fact, is the "core claim", the unusual alliance underlying New anti-Semitism. I can't be more clear than that. It's hard to know what to make of the rest of your comment, except that it would be helpful if you focussed on article content, and avoided hyperbolic language. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg: The summary mentioned it twice and I removed only a duplication while also adding more contextual information. The only way you your accusation of my "whitewashing and POV" makes sense is if you assume people stop reading half way through the summary. This set of false accusations is based on SlimVirgin's initial misreading of my change and your apparently blind support for her. The accusations have become nothing more than a charade. Your inability to understand my last comment shows that discussing this with you in particular is not useful. --Ben Houston 18:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

We don't need you to "modify" what sources say; or to add your own "nuance." We need to quote or closely paraphrase the sources which is what I did. And anyway, as I've told you more than once, there're no point in editing this section because I'm going to rewrite it when the report becomes available, so you're wasting your time. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Huh? I didn't modify what the source said, the nuance was in the original. I think this makes a prefect trifecta of false accusations -- that's an impressive accomplishment considering I only edited one sentence. Its pretty funny actually. To echo the recent words of User:6SJ7, there are clear WP:OWN issues with this article. --Ben Houston 02:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You removed something that the source had said and replaced it with your own words. Perhaps the problem is that you don't read the sources before editing. Whatever causes it, please don't do it again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Your authoritatively worded statement that I "removed something that the source had said and replaced it with [my] own words" is almost a lie, the question is are you intentionally telling a mistruth or are you confused and unable to consider alternatives. --Ben Houston 03:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Ben, whenever you edit the article or post on talk, it turns into a long saga of claim and counter-claim. The sole aim here is to write an article that uses authoritative sources, and to write up what they say without adding any spin to it. Personal opinions about anti-Semitism, accusations on talk, and all the rest, have no place here, and I have no interest in them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You accuse me falsely of things that I didn't do. But I am also attacked for responding to these accusations. It is a funny situation which seems from my perspective to be designed to be unfair towards me. --Ben Houston 13:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Incident report filed here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#How_does_one_deal_with_false_accusations_and_WP:OWN_on_a_sensitive_topic.3F --Ben Houston 15:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

In the spirit of the above, writing an article without adding any spin, three points. One, what is the rationale for juxtaposing the establishment of this inquiry with the proposal for an academic boycott? There is no such reference on the inquiry's website, or on BBC news online this morning. Two, I do not think it is accurate to say that this inquiry was set up by Parliament. It was set up by a cross-party group of parliamentarians. That it has been taken very seriously by distinguished members of the British State and establishment is clear from the details about participation that have been included. Three, I do not think that the "witch's brew" commment by Mr McShane is in the report but was made in a Radio 4 programme last weekend. Oh, and I hope since you are not interested in personal opinions about anti-Semitism you will assume that this edit and any others I may make are offered in good faith, and not jump to conclusions as you and another admin did last month. Itsmejudith 07:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Scholarly and government sources

I thought it might be helpful to list the scholarly and government sources we use in this article, in response to a few editors who have turned up here without reading the article to complain that it isn't sourced. "Where are the sources?" one of them asked recently. Here they are. (In addition to the following, we use several well-known journalists and other writers. Full list here.) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

We have 118 footnotes citing 76 separate sources.

Scholarly sources:

• Michael Barkun, professor of political science at Syracuse University
• Yehuda Bauer professor of Holocaust studies at the Avraham Harman Institute of Contemporary Jewry at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
• Anne Bayefsky, professor of law at York University.
• Phyllis Chesler, professor emeritus of psychology and women's studies at the College of Staten Island.
• Noam Chomsky, professor of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
• Irwin Cotler, professor of law at McGill University.
• Alan Dershowitz, Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Harvard University.
• Todd Endelman, William Haber Professor of Modern Jewish History at the University of Michigan.
• Jack Fischel, chair of history at Millersville University of Pennsylvania.
• Manfred Gerstenfeld, director of the Post-Holocaust and Anti-Semitism project, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.
• Todd Gitlin, professor of journalism and sociology at Columbia University.
• Brian Klug, senior research fellow in philosophy at St Benet's Hall, Oxford.
• Norman Finkelstein, professor of political science at DePaul University.
• Edward H. Kaplan, William N. and Marie A. Beach Professor of Management Sciences at the Yale School of Management, Professor of Public Health at the Yale School of Medicine, and Professor of Engineering in the Yale Faculty of Engineering.
• Deborah Lipstadt, professor of Modern Jewish and Holocaust Studies at Emory University.
• Baruch Kimmerling, professor of sociology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
• George Michael, assistant professor of political science and administration of justice at the University of Virginia's College of Wise,
• Earl Raab, director emeritus of the Nathan Perlmutter Institute for Jewish Advocacy, Brandeis University.
• Edward Said, former professor of English and comparative literature at Columbia University.
• Charles A. Small, Director of Urban Studies at the Southern Connecticut State University, and professor with the Institute for Social and Policy Studies at Yale University.
• Lawrence Summers, former president of Harvard University.
• Pierre-André Taguieff, philosopher and director of research at the Centre national de la recherche scientifique.
• Joseph Telushkin, National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership.
• Robert Wistrich, Neuberger Professor of Modern History at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and head of its International Center for the Study of Anti-Semitism.
• Steven Zipperstein, professor of Jewish Culture and History at Stanford University.
• Laurie Zoloth, Director of Bioethics, and professor of Medical Ethics and Humanities, Northwestern University.

Government reports/special inquiries:

• France: "Chantier sur la lutte contre le racisms et l'antisemitisme," chaired by Jean-Christophe Rufin, president of Action Against Hunger and former vice-president of Médecins Sans Frontières, October 19, 2004.
• Israel: Coordinating Forum for Countering Antisemitism, headed by Deputy Foreign Minister Rabbi Michael Melchior, set up in 2001.
• UK: "All Parliamentary Inquiry into Anti-Semitism in the UK," chaired by Dr. Denis McShane, former Europe Minister for the UK, September 7, 2006.
• U.S.: "Report on Global Anti-Semitism," U.S. State Dept, 2004.

---

The major issue isn't the sources but rather the frequent misquoting or selective quoting of them in order to create a one-sided presentation. It's a standard technique of propagandists. The problem with this article is that one person is forcing everything to be perceived through a distorted lens. That said, it fairly easy to notice that the main writer of this article is pushing an agenda. Dave Winer once said that one of the biggest issues with Wikipedia is that many articles are written with people with agendas and that more people need to be aware of this. --Ben Houston 13:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Give me one example of my "frequent misquoting or selective quoting." And do not accuse me again of "pushing an agenda." You are being incredibly offensive. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Great suggestion from incident report

Guy just made a great suggestion in response to my incident report. My issue with the article is the same issue that SlimVirgin and Jayjg have with my edits -- they are disagreements about the accuracy in which the reports are summarized. The solution, Guy suggests, is to move towards more full quotes from these reports which should reduce the importance and thus need to concern ourselves with these subjective summarizes. --Ben Houston 16:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea- readers can draw their own conclusions, we don't need to do it for them. Friday (talk) 16:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

In order to avoid direct confrontation with SV / Jayjg -- I would like to avoid the perception that I am provoking them -- I am doing to work on flushing out the criticism section using fully quotes. --Ben Houston 17:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

But you are being deliberately provocative; you gave notice that you would do this several weeks ago. It's not a good idea to overuse quotes, because then the section will turn into a list of quotes rather than a narrative, which is what many of the badly written articles on Wikipedia are like. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I did not say that I would attack the article many weeks ago but rather that I would attempt to address what I feel are balance problems with the article. I do not plan to give up. --Ben Houston 17:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Another source for British report

Haaretz article. --Ben Houston 13:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

We don't need it. We have the report itself. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

But they are useful in backing up how we describe the report. Without third-party commentary, it can become easy to draw original conclusions or inadvertantly push a certain point of view by emphasizing parts or ideas that didn't receive emphasis in the press or in general. (This isn't necessarily me endorsing the Haaretz article, as I'm not familiar with that paper.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware of that, and I've been extremely careful to report accurately on the parts of the report that directly concern our article. As I said below, criticism of the report will be added if and when people publish any, which will take some time. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

British report

I've added the material from it that's directly relevant to our article. I'm looking out for criticism of the report and will add it when it arrives, but it could be a few days or longer before the serious commentators get a chance to review it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy in quoting

In a recent edit, SlimVirgin added the following image and caption to the "Left and anti-Zionism" section:

The caption that accompanies the image is, in fact, not accurate. The quoted text appears only once in the course of the report, and in the following context:

"158. We heard evidence that contemporary antisemitism in Britain is now more commonly found on the left of the political spectrum than on the right. Professor Cesarani submitted that this has made it harder to define and contest "because it no longer has any resemblance to classical Nazi-style Jew hatred, because it is masked by or blended inadvertently into anti-Zionism, and because it is often articulated in the language of human right".

The committee does not offer an opinion on Professor Cesarani's views. Its only recommendation in this section is to advise the Electoral Commission to establish a "contract of acceptable behaviour" for candidates to exercise due caution "when addressing issues such as racism, community relations and minorities during political campaigning."

In other words, the quoted text is a misattribution and has no business being in the article.

I hope that a further review of the British report will not result in the discovery of similar misattributions. CJCurrie 20:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Then add his name rather than removing it, please! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

? CJCurrie 20:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't say that only Cesarani said it. Please read the report carefully, CJC. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I've addressed this below. CJCurrie 21:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I never implied that "only Cesarani said it". I merely took issue with the demonstrably incorrect claim that the commission formally endorsed this view.

Have you read the summary of conclusions? There are quite a few direct references to the BNP and radical Islam in the "sources of anti-Semitism" section, but not one direct reference to the left. CJCurrie 20:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Please read the whole report, not just the draft. As for the criticism section in the left, we can't have one section only with its own criticism section. It has already led others to think that's the criticism for the entire article. In fact, the criticism is woven through the text, as it should be, and so that's what I've done here too. You didn't seem at all bothered about having it a couple of weeks ago, and in fact it was me who put it back only because the section would be too long in one lump. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Responses:

(i) Further to the above, I'm not certain there's a particularly compelling need to highlight a single professor's charge that anti-Semitism is more prevalent on the left than the right, particularly when the report pictured next to the quote does not actually endorse this conclusion.

It doesn't say it's a single professor. Read the report before commenting, please! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Very well: I've not certain there's a particularly compelling need to highlight the commission's having "heard evidence" that anti-Semitism is now more prevalent on the left than the right, particularly when they did not actually endorse this view in the report pictured next to the quote. CJCurrie 21:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

(ii) we can't have one section only with its own criticism section. Why not? This section alone (dealing with accusations concerning the Left and anti-Zionsim) seems to be a magnet for criticism.

(iii) It has already led others to think that's the criticism for the entire article. Like whom? I've not seen anyone make this claim.

(iv) I think you may be unclear as to my present intentions vis-a-vis the "criticism" section. If there is a consensus among other contributors to this page that the "criticism" section should be restructured or retitled, I'm prepared to live with that decision. I am not, however, of the mind that the section should be removed by one contributor with no prior discussion. Let's discuss the matter first, and then act according to consensus. CJCurrie 20:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

We have already discussed the matter and you indicated that you didn't mind. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

When did I say this? I think you may be confusing me with another contributor, or taking something I said out-of-context. CJCurrie 21:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

CJCurrie, it appears that it is you who is misattributing. The report itself states "We heard evidence that contemporary antisemitism in Britain is now more commonly found on the left of the political spectrum than on the right. Professor Cesarani submitted that this has made it harder to define and contest "because it no longer has any resemblance to classical Nazi-style Jew hatred, because it is masked by or blended inadvertently into anti-Zionism, and because it is often articulated in the language of human rights." The report does not say that it was Cesarani who provided the evidence; indeed, it does not state who gave it. However, it notes that Cesarani submitted that this made it harder to define and contest. I'm rather dismayed by the lack of good faith here, and if you're going to insist that others attribute accurately, I think you should start by doing so yourself.

Also, I note that you reverted SV's integration of the criticism into the article with the comment that "I'm not going to allow you to remove the "criticism" section, Slim. This comment seems to imply that the criticism was removed, when no criticism was actually removed at all, and it implies a disturbing sense of ownership over that section. Could you explain in more understandable terms why you felt the need to revert that edit? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

(i) Read my words carefully, Jay. I did not at any time suggest that I believed the misattribution to be deliberate.

(ii) I have to admit to being more than a bit puzzled by your countercharge. I never indicated that Prof. Cesarani was the source of the evidence; I merely noted that the commission did not endorse his statements. I could add that the commission did not formally endorse the "evidence" either.

(iii) I would prefer that contributors to this page discuss any restructuring or retitling of the "criticism" section, prior to changes being made. Clear enough? CJCurrie 20:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. When you describe the aforementioned quotation as "Professor Cesarani's views", it appears as if you attribute all of the evidence to him (as I stated before), and your "hope" regarding not finding other misattributions is not a very "good faith" type of statement - the import is clear enough. Your explanation that by "removed" you meant "restuctured or retitled" is rather far-fetched, but of course I believe that that is exactly what you meant. And finally I also did not suggest that you believed the "misattribution" to be deliberate; well, no moreso than you did, in any event. :-) Jayjg ^(talk) 21:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

As long as we're clear. Btw, my initial use of the word "removed" referred only to the header; I wonder if you might be seeing contradictions where none exist. CJCurrie 21:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose anything is possible. :-) Jayjg ^(talk) 21:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

Re: criticism: "... it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms." - Jimbo Wales. I agree with that, and so I try to incorporate criticism into the text whenever it's practical to do so. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not certain this quote is applicable here: the quotes are hardly random or arbitary. CJCurrie 20:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's applicable. He was talking about all articles. Good articles will tend to have the criticism incorporated throughout wherever possible. And this section in our article is very much a random collection of quotes. We have Chomsky talking about anti-Semitism in the Republican Party and Finkelstein talking about how Phyllis Chesler (whom we haven't even mentioned!) doesn't talk enough about Israeli attacks on Arabs.

The problem with the black-and-white approach you're taking is that there's no room for nuance. For example, I was about to add a criticism of the view that anti-Israel = anti-Semitism, but it's from a writer who is otherwise a proponent of NAS, so I wouldn't add him to a criticism section. This article has tried to be three dimensional and nuanced, and having a lone criticism subsection of just one section jars. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

As I recall, the Chesler/Finkelstein reference was added by someone else. I agree that it's a bit jarring, and I'd have no objection to removing it.

The "Criticism" header itself, however, is there for a reason (actually three reasons, which I outlined a few weeks ago -- I don't feel like repeating myself now, but anyone can review my comments just by scrolling up the page.) Your arguments are not without merit, and I look forward to the responses of other contributors to the page. CJCurrie 21:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

CJC, I see you've reverted again. Can you please say why you're reverting something you appeared to agree to a couple of weeks ago?

Please justify having a criticism section for the Left and anti-Zionism section only, but none for any other (where criticism is woven into the text instead). Also, apart from that, I would like to build up a section about Left-wing anti-Zionism, with pro and anti material, which is what I started with that section. Nothing was removed, and in fact it would have been added to.

Please notice that this is the worst section (in my view) of the article, basically just a list of quotes, with no organizing principle and no narrative, which is usually a sign that the editors haven't done much reading but have just added a bunch of quotes. I would like to clean it up and incorporate it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

(i) Can you please say why you're reverting something you appeared to agree to a couple of weeks ago? Perhaps I could, if I knew what you were referring to.

(ii) I've already responded to your second question above. CJCurrie 20:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

No, you haven't. Again: (1) please justify having a criticism section for the Left and anti-Zionism section only, but none for any other; and (2) are you saying you disagree with Jimbo's comment that "it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms"? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's where it was discussed before [6] where you said you weren't wedded to keeping it. I then removed the section, and it was me who later added it back, only because the Left section was otherwise too long. I did that as a temporary measure until I got round to creating a proper subsection on anti-Zionism, which the criticism material would be incorporated into. That was the subsection I tried to start today. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I said I wasn't permanently wedded to keeping it, if someone could suggest a better alternative. As it stands, I'm not certain that SV's solution properly addresses point (ii) of my initial objections; in fact, it may simply make matters worse. Presentation is important in an article of this sort, after all. CJCurrie 21:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Btw, my recollection is that you didn't object to the criticism section a few weeks ago. CJCurrie 21:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed it, as I said above. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

And in fact, you wrote: "I think most would agree that the association with anti-Zionism is the most controversial aspect of NAS. It doesn't strike me as inappropriate to have a separate section for such criticism." Exactly. That's what I was creating. I just wasn't calling it "Criticism." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

See above. CJCurrie 21:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you please answer my two questions above? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I already have. CJCurrie 21:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you copy and paste them here, please, because I can't see them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

(i) you wrote: we can't have one section only with its own criticism section. I responded: Why not? This section alone (dealing with accusations concerning the Left and anti-Zionsim) seems to be a magnet for criticism. Summary: I'm not convinced there's a problem with only only section having a criticism section.

Then where will the rest of the anti-Zionism material go? Must I create yet another section, and then can't Finkelstein's and Ali's material be used there? You're creating silly divisions. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure some viable compromise could be reached. A bit of creativity never hurts. CJCurrie 22:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's no compromise between having and not having a criticism subsection. I've just started reading Beyond Chutzpah, for example, and was intending to weave more of that throughout the text, and in particular in a new anti-Zionism section. But it's not all appropriate for a "criticism" section. Your black-and-white mentality doesn't fit the real world. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Back to ad hominem attacks, are we? Honestly, Slim, my (current) support for a "Criticism" section under "The Left and anti-Zionism" is based on very specific concerns, which I've already outlined in a previous post. I indicated some time ago that I was not "permanently wedded" to the concept, and I stand by this now (to put it another way, I remain willing to compromise). What I'm not going to do is permit the section to be retitled with something that does not address my prior concerns, and in fact only makes matters worse. CJCurrie 22:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

(ii) I think the word "random" may be the sticking point here. Many articles have "criticism" sections; these criticisms are not random. CJCurrie 21:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Never mind that part of it. Do you disagree with Jimbo (and with all good Wikipedia editors that I'm familiar with) that, whenever possible, criticism should be woven throughout the text?

It's useful as a general rule, but there will always be some exceptions. CJCurrie 22:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Why should this be an exception? On the contrary, this is an easy article to weave the criticism into, because every point for and against suggests its opposite. There's no need for a separate section in an article like this. What it suggests is that we don't know how to write. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

See above. I'm not (as I said) permanently wedded to the concept of a "criticism" section, but I don't believe your technical objections are valid grounds for removing it. CJCurrie 23:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Compare

Here is CJCurrie's version , and here is the section that I started, but didn't get to finish. My intention was to add more material about anti-Zionism, from different perspectives, criticism and otherwise. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, please compare and discuss. And please take into account my primary motivation for establishing the "Criticism" section in the first place:

(ii) From the standpoint of presentation, the previous version did not strike me as entirely fair to Tariq Ali. Having a picture of him beneath an anti-Semitic image, in a section called "the Left and anti-Zionism", may have led inattentive readers to assume that he was *part of* the New anti-Semitism. (I'm not suggesting that this was deliberate.) This has bothered me for a while; creating a subsection solves the problem.

Placing a picture of Tariq Ali under a header entitled "Left-wing anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism" does not strike me as an adequate response to this concern. CJCurrie 21:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

CJ, you're being difficult over very minor points. The photograph can be moved, or removed entirely if you prefer. It's only there because it's on the commons. Ditto with Chomsky. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The photograph is only the most obvious problem. The title alone could be rather misleading to many viewers. Anyway, I'd be quite interested in hearing the responses of others to this situation. CJCurrie 21:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe that a criticism section is important. I think my current attempt is not yet quite ready for prime time though. --Ben Houston 00:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Quotes vs summaries

In response to the two valid points made: a) that if we summarise we may introduce bias and b) that if we use too many quotations the text will be unwieldy, I would like to make a simple suggestion. That is, that reports such as the McShane report carry their own summaries, introductions and conclusions. The purpose of these is to help out busy editors. So that is what we can and should use the most. It will not usually be appropriate to sift through the text for points that are found in there but are not prominent.

No, we won't do that. These draft reports are produced in order to influence media coverage (basically, to write the stories for the journalists). That's precisely what we don't allow. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I want to contribute to ensuring that the McShane report appears here in a perfectly fair way that reflects its contents as accurately as possible. But it will take me a couple of days, rather than a couple of hours, to do this. BTW is this report noteworthy enough for its own article? Itsmejudith 21:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I thoroughly resent your implication that (1) I may not have represented it fairly, and (2) that you're somehow better able to do so. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I do think that some of the editors of this article need to take a deep breath and calm down. The exchange above is a long way from what WP:CIVILITY advocates. I think that kind of response to a polite query is unjustified, unhelpful and leads to an unnecessarily hostile atmosphere between editors. Civility is surely more important than ever when dealing with sensitive and controversial topics like this. Can we please try to stay cool? -- ChrisO 22:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

There currently isn't enough material for its own article, which would consist only of a summary of the report. If a lot of criticism is published and it becomes a debating point, that may change. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, three things for me to respond to here.

1) What I mean is that we should mainly draw on points that are prominent in the report's OWN summary sections, i.e. the introduction, the executive summary, the main conclusion. That seems to me to be the most reliable way to reflect the report's own spin, without adding our own. Of course, the editors of any report look to how it will play in the media. As encyclopedia writers we should respect that and try to play it the way the editors wanted, not any other way. That's all.

2) I didn't imply anything about SlimVirgin's capacity to contribute. I only said I wanted to make a contribution. Two heads are better than one - that is part of the Wikipedia philosophy, no? Thank you ChrisO for your suggestion about remaining calm, much appreciated.

3) SlimVirgin's probably right about there not being enough material on the McShane report for its own article. When I get a chance I hope to find out what Wikipedia has already carried about previous parliamentary all-party committees and their reports. This is because the British constitution and government are complicated. I want to get some things sorted in my own mind about the committee's status and then (as a British person who is supposed to understand these things) may be able to put them into Wikipedia.

With the warmest, friendliest greetings to all those working overtime on this article. (NOT SARCASTIC - REAL!!!!) Itsmejudith 18:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO

Chris, you're adding unnecessary attribution as though anyone doubts it: "to refer to what writers have described as a wave of anti-Semitism that escalated, particularly in Western Europe, after the Second Intifada in 2000, the failure of the Oslo accords, and the September 11, 2001 attacks." Can you name a source who argues that there has been no wave of anti-Semitism that escalated since those events? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm just being cautious. I'm certainly not denying it, merely attributing it neutrally. If you can think of an alternative way of attributing it (e.g. "according to xxx") then please feel free to do so. -- ChrisO 22:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

There's no need to attribute obvious points that no one would disagree with. We don't refer to the "ball of fire that writers have described as the sun." Ditto with a wave of anti-Semitism. You won't find anyone who disagrees with that basic point; well, not anyone serious. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

There's no proposition so obvious that someone won't disagree with it. Call that ChrisO's Law, if you like. ;-) Seriously though, attributing it leaves open the door to a discussion of whether this reported phenomenon is in fact real or not, rather than just stating baldly that it is real. I see CJCurrie's managed to find a contradictory view - no doubt there's more like it. -- ChrisO 22:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

What does the evidence show? There has been good investigation done, serious investigation. All the evidence shows there's no -- there's no evidence at all for a rise of a new anti-Semitism, whether in Europe or in North America. The evidence is zero. And, in fact, there's a new book put out by an Israel stalwart. His name is Walter Laqueur, a very prominent scholar. It's called The Changing Face of Anti-Semitism. It just came out, 2006, from Oxford University Press. He looks at the evidence, and he says no. There's some in Europe among the Muslim community, there's some anti-Semitism, but the notion that in the heart of European society or North American society there's anti-Semitism is preposterous. And in fact -- or no, a significant rise in anti-Semitism is preposterous.

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=479

CJCurrie 22:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

If that's a recent text, and if he is saying there is no rise, then he's making a fool of himself, because every single agency that records incidents is recording a rise. But I don't think that's what he's saying: "No rise of a new anti-Semitism"; no "significant" rise in anti-Semitism. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

According to the cited page it's dated August 29, 2006 or shortly thereafter. -- ChrisO 22:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Laqueur may well be making a fool of himself, but that's not for you or me to decide. As someone once said, we have to go with what the sources say. I'm skeptical of his conclusions myself, but there doesn't appear to be any getting around his assessment (your hair-splitting quibbles notwithstanding). CJCurrie 23:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

And then there's this. CJCurrie 23:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Changing meanings

I've done some digging in historical archives to see if I could find out where this term and concept comes from. It has quite an interesting history - the concept of a "new anti-Semitism" seems to have first originated around the end of the 19th century as a way of distinguishing anti-Jewish sentiment based on scientific racism from the older, more "primitive" religious-based sentiment. The sources show that it was later used with reference to Stalin's anti-Jewish campaigns, which were of course related to his views on Zionism; this seems to have been the earliest form of what we'd now call "new anti-Semitism" (though I've also found suggestions that the Soviets used anti-Semitic propaganda to campaign against Zionism as early as the 1930s). Then, finally, in the 1980s we have Israeli assertions that the New Left was practising "new anti-Semitism". Sources dating to after about 1990 appear to use this meaning exclusively.

It was an interesting bit of research; hopefully it'll provide a bit of useful background for the article. -- ChrisO 22:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Another editor today found an early use of it in relation to left-wing anti-Zionism in an article written in 1984. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm done responding here for today, by the way. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Draft/outline of a new criticism section

I tried my hand at reading through the original criticism sources and organized what I found. The result is this outline/draft of a criticism section:

User:Bhouston/Criticism_of_new_anti-Semitism.

It is very rough, lacks some overall cohesiveness and needs softer edges but I think that even so, it deals head-on and accurately with the key, albeit complex, issues that critics have with the concept of NAS. --Ben Houston 23:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I withdraw this draft/outline from consideration. It was more just a means for me to organization my own views. --Ben Houston 21:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Further question

Why is the British report included under "The Left and anti-Zionism" to begin with, when its conclusions are focused more on the radical right and radical Islam? CJCurrie 23:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The parts of the report that deal with the left are in that section; the parts that deal with on-campus anti-Semitism are in the On campus section; the parts that deal with the right in the Far right section, and so on. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

CJ, to keep on removing that image is just disruptive. The cutline is completely accurate, and this is the section about the left, so that comment belongs there. That really is not a valid edit. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

As I've already noted, a single professor's testimony before a government commission is not especially remarkable, especially when the commission does not endorse said testimony. If I were a more cynical individual, I might suspect you were simply trying to find some way of fitting a picture of the report into the "Left and anti-Zionism" section.

Accusations of "disruption" tend to wear thin after a while, btw. CJCurrie 00:36, 8 September 2006

(UTC)

Well, they shouldn't. Please take them seriously. You remove the image and cutline just because it says "concluded that" and you want "heard evidence that," and then when I change the wording, you remove it again anyway; and earlier you claimed just one professor had said it; and now you claim you have no idea why the report is even mentioned in that section. Chris, you might want to read the report very carefully and try to learn something from it, rather than assuming you know more than people who have studied the subject. Please don't go back to the edit warring you use to engage in. Remember what it led to. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

You stated above that you were not implying that it was the testimony of a single professor, that I had someone misinterpreted you, but here you are making it clear you are assuming exactly that. If I were a more cynical individual, I might suspect you were changing your story to whatever you thought might be a better way of deleting the image and reference. When a commission "hears evidence", it is actually significant, and it doesn't mean that it is from one individual. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I was getting the quotes confused. (Sorry, I'm multitasking.)

In any event, it doesn't matter. At the risk of repeating myself, Very well: I've not certain there's a particularly compelling need to highlight the commission's having "heard evidence" that anti-Semitism is now more prevalent on the left than the right, particularly when they did not actually endorse this view in the report pictured next to the quote. CJCurrie 00:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

You may claim it "doesn't matter". The evidence, though, is damning. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Evidence of what? I'll freely acknowledge that the "single professor" line was a mistake (and one I've made twice so far). I'm puzzled as to why you would suggest some malevolence to this error, however, or imply that my entire case rises or falls upon it. CJCurrie 00:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove that image or the caption again. The British report contained this information in its section on the left. We cite it in our section on the left. It's therefore 100 percent appropriate, and you have no grounds for removing it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I would beg to disagree. The committee's own conclusions identify anti-Semitism as emerging primarily from the right and radical Islam. I can think of little justification for including its image in the "Left and anti-Zionism" section, except as POV-pushing. CJCurrie 01:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

CJ, have you read it? They have a whole section on the left and anti-Semitism. I used that section as a source for OUR section on the left. They have a section on the right. I use that section as a source for OUR section on the right. They have a whole section on campuses. I used that section as a source for OUR section on campuses. It could not be more straightforward. You have no valid grounds to object. You're simply removing material that you personally don't like, and doing it in the most blatant way imaginable, wasting everyone's time, your own included. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to remove the text -- I'm removing a POV-pushing image. Btw, I find it passing strange that you haven't shown the slightest bit of contrition for your incredible distortion of the report's findings earlier today. CJCurrie 01:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

There was no "incredible distortion." Stop this now, please. You're going too far and it's pointless. You know that when we collaborate, we get more done, and it benefits the article as well as us, so please try to regain that position. This pointless back and forth just gets everyone mad and the article suffers.

Please explain why you feel an image of the report cover is "POV pushing." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It most certainly was an incredible distortion. You claimed, inaccurately, that the report concluded that anti-Semitism was more prevalent on the left than on the right. In fact, you made this claim twice. I'm not accusing you of deliberately distorting the text, but I would appreciate an acknowledgement of error, rather than a protracted effort to maintain the text in a slightly altered form.

The image is POV-pushing because the report does not single out the left for criticism. In fact, it minimizes the left when drawing its conclusions. Including an image of the report in a section dealing with "the Left and anti-Zionism" seems calculated to create an inaccurate image of the report's conclusions in the eyes of most readers. CJCurrie 01:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for moving the image. I now consider this matter to be closed. CJCurrie 01:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Serving notice

I find this edit to be entirely inappropriate, and will challenge it at the earliest possible opportunity.

Reasons:

(i) It has already been noted that some critics of the term have challenged the idea of an increase in anti-Semitism. The statement, "That there has been a resurgence of anti-Semitic attacks and attitudes is accepted by opponents of the concept of new anti-Semitism" is not factually correct as applied to all such critics.

(ii) I have not misunderstood the significance of "heard evidence". The important thing is that the commission did not endorse this evidence in its conclusion. The image, in its current form, is naked POV-pushing.

As I understand it, I'm not even permitted to add a "NPOV" notice at present, under the regulations of the 3RR. As such, I would encourage other participants to review my comments, and consider adding such a notice themselves. CJCurrie 00:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

(i) Finkelstein propagandizes on just about any subject he imagines is related to Israel, but his second-hand opinion regarding anti-Semitism is certainly not notable, much less justifying deleting a phrase describing the scholarly consensus.

(ii) When a commission says it "heard evidence", that is an endorsement.

--Jayjg ^(talk) 00:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

(i) Finkelstein has challenged the accuracy of claims of increased anti-Semitism. You can spin this however you want, but this fact alone challenges the accuracy of the article's current wording.

(ii) Any evidence for that claim? CJCurrie 00:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Finkelstein can claim what he likes; however, his expertise in this area is nil - his is not a notable opinion on this subject. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, he wrote his graduate thesis on modern American Zionist literature, and has written extensively on the theory of a "new anti-Semitism". What's more, his writings on the subject have been published by a credible firm, Alan Dershowitz's best efforts to stop the presses notwithstanding. Feel free to disagree with everything he's written, but don't pretend his is not a notable opinion on the subject. CJCurrie 01:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

His expertise, such as it is, does not extend to anti-Semitism. Infamous people can often get their books published on just about any topic they want, but that doesn't make his opinion on this subject notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

In specific regional areas there have been increases in attacks against Jews and Jewish symbols -- that is a pretty clear fact. In Canada, in particular there was an distinct increase that coincided with the recent Israeli invasion and bombing of Lebanon in response to the Hezbollah kidnappings. What is more controversial is whether these attacks are the result of an increase in deep seated anti-Semitic prejudice (which suggests that one has to focus all efforts on combating anti-Semitism) or, as claimed by critics, rooted in Muslim/Arab political outrage (which requires a more multifaceted response.) --Ben Houston 00:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, are you saying that an increase in attacks on Jewish targets in relation to events in Israel is somehow not anti-Semitic? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I am echoing what Brian Klug posits in his article "The Myth of New Anti-Semitism" in the Nation. He writes that "the evidence suggests that the perpetrators of the anti-Jewish attacks in France were animated by political outrage, not bigotry. According to the Israeli Foreign Ministry itself, most of the incidents were a protest against inequities in the occupied territories." --Ben Houston 01:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The same evidence also suggests that the rioters of Kristallnacht were animated by political outrage at the assassination of Ernst vom Rath, not bigotry. Who was the target of those attacks, again? The Israeli embassy, or random French Jews? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Klug describes the reasoning of NAS proponents: "For it's not the Jews of France who are occupying the territories, it's the State of Israel. If the motive for these incidents was purely political, why didn't the protesters attack the Israeli embassy? Why attack individual Jews and Jewish institutions?"

Klug goes on to state that things are not that simple and that this

"misconception goes to the heart of the complex situation in which Jews find themselves today. Israel does not regard itself as a state that just happens to be Jewish (like the medieval kingdom of the Khazars). It sees itself as (in Prime Minister Sharon's phrase) 'the Jewish collective,' the sovereign state of the Jewish people as a whole. In his speech at the Herzliya Conference in December, Sharon called the state 'a national and spiritual center for all Jews of the world,' and added, 'Aliyah [Jewish immigration] is the central goal of the State of Israel.' To what extent this view is reciprocated by Jews worldwide is hard to say. Many feel no particular connection to the state or strongly oppose its actions. On the other hand, in spring 2002, at the height of Israel's Operation Defensive Shield, Jews gathered in large numbers in numerous cities to demonstrate their solidarity, as Jews, with Israel. Many Jewish community leaders, religious and secular, publicly reinforce this identification with the state. All of which is liable to give the unreflective onlooker the impression that Jews are, as it were, lumping themselves together; that Israel is indeed 'the Jewish collective.'"

Klug cautions those that the complex relationship between the Jewish diaspora and Israel do not justify in any way "a single incident where Jews are attacked for being Jewish; such attacks are repugnant. But it does provide a context within which to make sense of them without seeing a global 'war against the Jews.'"--Ben Houston 01:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand; one must never say that viewing Jews as a single undifferentiated collective, and attacking random Jews for the actions of others hundred or thousands of miles away, is, in any way, anti-Semitism. Of course, one cannot condone such acts, but because the situation is so "complex", one can certainly understand it. And whatever it is, again, when a random French Jew gets his head bashed in by a rioter who doesn't like Ariel Sharon, it's a complex thing that is definitely not anti-Semitism. Perhaps we should refer to such Jew-bashing as "legitimate, but misguided, political protest". And, as a bonus, that will bring the number of anti-Semitic incidents waaay down. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, instead of me continuing to copy and paste from Klug's article, why not read it yourself? Here is it: The Myth of New Anti-Semitism. (It is sort of funny that the majority of Klug's criticism are not contained in the existing summary of his work in the article....) Best. --Ben Houston 01:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's say that someone like Osama bin Laden claimed to be speaking for all Muslims, and, based on some political claims, decided to destroy the World Trade Center towers in the name of Islam, and some American then decided they hated and feared Muslims. Would that be an example of Islamophobia, or of some complex political response? (The Klug article doesn't discuss that). Jayjg ^(talk) 20:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite understand the analogy your making. I do believe that Islamophobia is to be condemned but you are right that it is a secondary issue that is driven by people misunderstanding Islamist-associated terrorism -- it is clear that attacks on Arabs or people suspected to be Arabs (such as turban wearing Hindus) tends to rise after the 9/11 attacks and so forth. It would be a mistake to say that those retaliatory attacks on Arabs are the primary result of a deep seated Islamophobia -- Islamophobia is rising because of prejudicial transferance just as anti-Semitism is. Also on that topic I can say this: I do favor viewing the battle against Islamist extremists as a policing matter as is a more common perception in Europe/Britian than as a global "War on Terror" or a conflict of civilizations. Viewing it as a policing matter that is just targeting criminal activity avoids making things more complex than necessary as well as potentially aggravating the situation rather than calming it. I don't view a "War on Terror" as a particularly effective concept -- for example, it never really made sense how Iraq under Saddam fit considering he wasn't really engaged in what is normally termed terrorism, claims he was aligned with al Queda were fairly flimsy, rather he was a relatively isolated, although brutal dictator of a fairly secular state. I guess I favor viewing things as they actually are rather than trying to fit them into contrived, simplified and potentially misleading conceptual frameworks. --Ben Houston 20:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg asked "I'm not talking about prejudice against Arabs or Hindus, or the War on Terror, I'm talking about firebombing mosques in response. Would that be an example of Islamophobia?"

I understand that it can be problematic in the way Brian Klug formulated his response in order to say that those attacks were not anti-Semitic -- that is your issue. I am now being put by you in the position of defending his piece. If you read his piece, I believe that when he is saying that those attacks are not necessarily anti-Semitic it is in the context of his claim that the primary cause is not anti-Semitism, it is a secondary effect based on misunderstanding. That said, outside of the context of the case he is making in his essay, those attacks can obviously be classified as anti-Semitism. Just as firebombing mosques can be classified as Islamophobia (although I would argue its a lot more than just a phobia if it involves firebombings.) If you read his essay you'll understand what I am talking about. I think that we're sort of stuck at the moment of talking past each other. --Ben Houston 21:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I would not dispute the contention that there has been a rise in anti-Semitic rhetoric and incidents since 2000, but this isn't the point at issue. For our present purposes, the only fact of significance is that at least one NAS-opponent has questioned the claim. (At least two, if you count Tony Judt.) CJCurrie 01:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. From my perspective, the main issue with new anti-Semitism is it posits relationships between real world phenomena that are incorrect and leads one to draw the inaccurate and dangerously paranoid conclusions. In the words of Klug, the NAS's conclusion that there is a growing global coalition of anti-Jewish sentiment "as much a figment of the imagination as its mirror image: a Jewish conspiracy against the world." --Ben Houston 01:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Finkelstein isn't a NAS-opponent, he's an Israel-opponent, and his "expertise", such as it is, is the Holocaust. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Finkelstein most certainly is an NAS-opponent, as evidenced in the first third of Beyond Chutzpah. The rest of your statement is both inaccurate and irrelevant. CJCurrie 01:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Finkelstein is not a notable NAS opponent, since he has no expertise in anti-Semitism. He can write about whatever he likes, but that doesn't mean his opinion is relevant. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

CJCurrie, you have a habit of deleting entire paragraphs you don't like when, at most, a word or two are contentious. You did it with the image; once that one word was changed to make it more "accurate", of course, you deleted it anyway, on other spurious grounds. I've now modified the paragraph in question to take not of the fact that one non-expert, non-notable critic of New anti-Semitism disagrees; all it took was two words. Do you plan to delete the paragraph again on some new grounds? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to delete it, because doing so would place me in violation of the 3RR. "Almost all" is not a satisfactory phrase, as it is obviously leading. However, I would not object to replacing it with the word "most". (Who said I was unwilling to compromise?) CJCurrie 01:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It's sad, but unsurprising, that the only reason you weren't going to delete it again was because you would have violated 3RR; apparently you would prefer to delete the whole paragraph, rather than change "almost all" to "most". Perhaps it is becoming more apparent to you why accusations of "disruption" have not "worn thin" at all. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you're not familiar with ironic humour. If so, I should perhaps clarify that my first comment was not intended to be taken at literal face-value.

Anyway, it's truly remarkable that you've managed to interpret my willingness to compromise as a sign of intransigence. To avoid further confusion, I will reiterate that I'd be willing to accept "most" as a compromise wording. CJCurrie 01:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at what you achieved today, and how many man (and woman!) hours it took. We could have done all this in five minutes flat by cooperating. You need to read some game theory.

I've changed "almost all" to "most," even though we really shouldn't give in to Finkelstein. You know yourself that all the evidence points toward a sharp rise in anti-Semitism since 2000. In the UK, July 2006 saw the highest number of reported anti-Semitic incidents since they began keeping records (admittedly, I don't know when that was). So if Finkelstein is simply saying: "Bah, no, it's preposterous," it shows that Finkelstein isn't a good source. One of the strengths of this article is that it doesn't rely on the usual rent-a-quote sources: Chesler and Foxman on one side and Chomsky and Finkelstein on the other, with the highest level of reading material Frontpagemag and Counterpunch. I hope we can keep it that way. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I could respond to this, but there's really no need. We're agreed on the wording. Let's move on. CJCurrie 01:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the image too, as it may be the image being in that section you object to rather than per se, though I don't see what difference it makes, but I've put it in the United Kingdom section, so I hope that's settled now. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Noted above. Thank you for the change. The matter is closed. CJCurrie 01:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Klug/Wistrich

Given that Klug and Wistrich were invited to give evidence to the British inquiry, and Klug to a previous German one, and Wistrich to the UN, they're clearly both regarded as major players in this debate, so I've added a subsection on their correspondence. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Disputed quote

We received evidence of an increase in antisemitism within certain fringe elements of the Muslim community. In many cases, these are the actions and words of a small yet radical minority whose views do not represent those of the mainstream majority. However, this cannot simply be dismissed as insignificant and the views of radical Islamists do seem to be entering mainstream discourse. Antisemitic rhetoric of this kind creates a climate of fear and intimidation for Jews in Britain.

This text appears in a section entitled "Islamist Antisemitism". Any rational person reading this quote would conclude that the line "the views of radical Islamists do seem to be entering mainstream discourse" is made in reference to British Muslim culture, not British culture as a whole. Wrenching the phrase out of context, however, implies the latter interpretation.

This is almost a textbook example of quoting-out-of-context. CJCurrie 04:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

See below. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Removing material rather than editing it

CJ, can I ask you please to stop removing material, rather than editing it? If you disagree with even one word in a sentence, you remove the whole thing. When you disagree with the placement of an image, you remove it rather than simply moving it. Today, you removed the quote about anti-Semitism becoming mainstream because that particular quote was in a section about Islam, rather than finding a more general quote about it (or asking someone else to, if you didn't have time). If you read the report, you'll see the inquiry did indeed talk about anti-Semitism becoming more mainstream in the UK (indeed, this was why the inquiry was set up in the first place), and all the interviews committee members have given confirm this e.g. "The most worrying discovery of this inquiry is that anti-Jewish sentiment is entering the mainstream, appearing in the everyday conversations of people who consider themselves neither racist nor prejudiced," former Foreign Office minister Denis McShane, the group's chairman, said. [7] Given that, it seems odd to remove it on the grounds that he's only referring to Muslims. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed the disputed quote because it misrepresents the report's conclusions. Denis McShane may well believe that anti-Jewish sentiment is entering the mainstream, but this view is not reflected in the actual text of the report.

The report cautions that anti-Semitic discourse is at risk of becoming "more mainstream" (p. 6), but it does not argue that anti-Semitism is "entering the mainstream". If you can find a line from the report that suggests otherwise, please show it. Or find a free-use picture of Dennis McShane, and use his quote instead. But don't misrepresent the text. CJCurrie 04:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

CJ, what are doing? The report does not confine this to the Muslim community. Quite the reverse. Read it. Read the news coverage. Read the statements from committee members. Please put that quote back. Did you even read the quote I added? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, Slim -- I misread your last edit. I'll return the text presently. CJCurrie 04:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what did you object to in my wording: The September 2006 British All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Anti-Semitism expresses concern that "violence, desecration of property and intimidation directed against Jews" is rising in Britain. CJCurrie 04:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection to it at all. But someone else added the AS-entering-the-mainstream quote, which you didn't like because of the page it was on, and I feel that, rather than removing it entirely, it would be better to find a more appropriate quote about it entering the mainstream, which I added. I was also going to give you this from Channel 4 to show that it's also the understanding of other readers of the report that it says this:

"The panel of politicians, who heard evidence over several months, concluded that anti-Jewish sentiment is entering mainstream society, and called on the government, police, prosecutors, universities and the Jewish community to act to stem the rising tide of prejudice." ("MPs fear rise in anti-Semitism", Channel 4 News, September 7, 2006.)

It's an important point not to lose, because it was the reason the inquiry was set up, and the evidence they heard confirmed it. The chairman said it was the "most worrying thing" to emerge from the inquiry. Therefore, if we want to sum up the conclusions of the inquiry in one sentence, that seems an appropriate way to do it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I "didn't like" the AS-entering-the-mainstream quote because it didn't accurately represent the source material. Anyway, there's no point in arguing this to death. We've agreed on the wording; let's move on. CJCurrie 04:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You asked a question and so I answered it. However, I would like to ask you again to stop revert warring over everything you don't like. Often, a tweak of the wording is all that's needed. Or in this case, you could have done a search through the report for the word "mainstream" and found a quote that didn't refer to Muslims; or asked me to do it, if you had no time. If we edit collaboratively, the article ends up better. If we revert war, it ends up a mess, and everyone gets pissed off. Also, it would be helpful if you would stop being so protective about anything to do with the left. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony's arbitration suggestion

Tony wrote on a number of user pages today that arbitration may be a good idea on this page. I quote from him here:

"Perhaps I'm being a bit too previous, but I suspect that it's about time the arbitration committee looked at this New anti-Semitism kerfuffle. I've applied for arbitration [8]. --Tony Sidaway 02:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)"

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#New_anti-Semitism

--Ben Houston 05:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section

CJ, we didn't finish discussing whether to have a criticism subsection in "The left and anti-Zionism." As I see it, there are two problems with it: first, it sticks out like a sore thumb because the other sections don't have a separate criticism section; and secondly, it makes that section read badly because the first part is all good, the second all bad. I prefer the Jimbo school of thought that, as he said, "it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms." That's how I prefer to write when it can be done, and it can be done easily in this case.

I started to do it yesterday but you reverted before I'd finished, so I have no draft to show. However, you said you weren't wedded to the criticism section, so what are your objections to incorporating the pro and anti? We would need two subsections or the section will be too long, but that can be done by identifying common themes, rather than for and against. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• I've already addressed both of your concerns (see above). I'm not going to oppose any and all changes to the section; I just want to be certain the change isn't for the worse. CJCurrie 18:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll restore what I started to work on, and when it's finished (or at least tidier), maybe you could read it and let me know what you think. We can always revert again if you dislike it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)