Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:28, 5 February 2007

Jewish history Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

New antisemitism was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (September 16, 2006). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Archives

Flannery section

I have decided to remove this paragraph from the article:

In The Anguish of the Jews: Twenty-Three Centuries of Antisemitism, Father Edward H. Flannery writes that, because most of the spectacular displays of antisemitism have come from the right — for example, Czarist pogroms, the Dreyfus Affair, and Adolf Hitler — it has blinded onlookers to what he calls an "uninterrupted strain of antisemitism on the Left," quoting Dennis Prager and Joseph Telushkin who write: "The further Left one goes, the greater the antisemitism." Flannery writes that it came as no surprise to historians of the left that, as William D. Rubinstein wrote in 1978: "Today, the main enemies of the Jews and Israel are almost exclusively on the left, most obviously the Communist states, the radical Third World anti-Zionist nations and their sympathizers in the West." Flannery argues that "all the progenitors of socialist theory, with the exception of St Simon, were bitter antisemites," arguing that Marx and Engels took much of what Flannery calls their antisemitism from Proudhon, Bauer, Fourier, Toussenel, and Fichte. Flannery writes that in 1891, the Second International Socialist Congress refused to condemn antisemitism without also condemning philosemitism. He cites historian Zosa Szajkowski, who writes that he could not find a "single word on behalf of Jews" in the entirety of French socialist literature from 1820 to 1920. The link between antisemitism and the ideology of the left is "not accidental," Flannery argues, because Judaism stresses nationality, peoplehood, or religious commitment; extreme leftist ideologies and traditional Judaism are "almost by definition incompatible."

There are several reasons why this paragraph does not meet the standards of encyclopedic inclusion. I've explained my reasons in detail, and have provided sub-headers for the benefit of readers.

I would request that anyone who wishes to respond please do so after the end of this post.

Sorry, it's too much to remember. I'll have to respond in between paras. SlimVirgin 20:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You could have just cut-and-pasted, you know. CJCurrie 22:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevance to the NAS article

The parts of Flannery's book referenced in this paragraph relate to a supposed "uninterrupted strain of antisemitism on the Left". Leaving aside the accuracy or inaccuracy of this charge, Flannery's evidence is not relevant to the concept of a "new antisemitism".

The problems of defining "new antisemitism" have been raised many times in discussions concerning this article, such that it may be impossible to find a definition that satisfies everyone. The term is currently defined on the article page as referring to the concept of a recent convergence of antisemitic thought and action involving three distinct ideologies: the far right, the left, and radical Islam. Previous versions of the article suggested that it was primarily a concept applied to the left, and specifically to the New Left. Some authors have used the term primarily in reference to radical Islam, while others have used it in a different sense, synonymous with "contemporary antisemitism".

Notwithstanding their differences, however, these definitions are linked by a common theme: they all refer to perceived developments in contemporary history. The excerpted portions of Flannery's text do not.

"NAS" is not defined as "antisemitism of the left", nor is it defined in terms of a linear progression of historical events dating back to the 19th century (which would be an absurdity for a "new" concept.) The fact that Proudhon and Fourier were antisemites is relevant to studies of Proudhon and Fourier, but not to the concept of a "new antisemitism". Similarly, the 1891 resolution of the Second International may or may not be relevant to a history of 19th century antisemitism, but it is clearly irrelevant to this page.

It is defined in part as an antisemitism of the left, and some commentators focus almost exclusively on this aspect of it. The Flannery material indicates that this is not new, and it provides a background to the development of the concept, as do the other sources in that section. Why single out Flannery? SlimVirgin 20:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It might have something to do with the fact that Flannery posits a connection between *19th century* socialism and modern antisemitism, which is clearly beyond the range of this article. (Seriously, has anyone else tried to claim *Proudhon and Fourier* as spiritual heirs to "NAS".) I could add in passing that Flannery's "continuous line" ignores a long period when Left groups supported Zionism as a national liberation movement. CJCurrie 22:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, you do realize what WP:NOR and WP:V are about? Flannery is a reliable source, and that's his view; it's not up to you to reject him because your personal analysis of history differs from his. Jayjg 17:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I've presented evidence that Flannery's 1985 edition is not a reliable source. You've ignored it. CJCurrie 17:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Source credibility

There are two editions of Edward Flannery's "The Anguish of the Jews". The first was published in 1965 by Macmillan Press. The second was issued in 1985 by Stimulus Books, a division of the Paulist Press (which mostly publishes Catholic devotional material). Copyright in the latter is owned by the Roman Catholic Bishop of Providence. There are significant differences between these books, and some sections (including the text referenced above) appear only in the second.

The original edition was released by a respected firm, and is recognized as being a work of scholarly merit. The second version was issued by a religious press, and there is some reason to believe that it may not have been adequately vetted (see below).

The circumstances of the Second Edition's publication can't help but draw into question its reliability as a source. (Are we really to be surprised that a book issed by the Catholic Church at the height of the Cold War would include sections attacking socialism?)

I don't see what this has to do with anything. Flannery was the author of both editions. He is our source. SlimVirgin 20:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

One edition was published by a credible source, the other was effectively self-published through a religious organization. I'm sorry you can't see the difference. CJCurrie 22:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Flannery is a reliable source, and of course what is relevant are his most recent views, not his earlier views. Again, your personal views about possible errors in Flannery's analysis are pure original research. Jayjg 17:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I've presented evidence that Flannery's 1985 edition is not a reliable source. You've ignored it. CJCurrie 17:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistency

Flannery's comments on the relationship between antisemitism and socialism underwent a significant transformation between 1965 and 1985.

Consider the following statement from the 1965 edition:

Toussenel ranks high among the high priests of so-called Socialist anti-Semitism, which enlisted in varying degrees such names as Pierre Proudhon, Karl Marx, Bruno Bauer, and lesser lights, all of whom trained their guns on Jewish "unproductiveness," "parasitism," and the like. The association of Socialism with anti-Semitism was unsubstantial, however, and did not survive the condemnation of the anti-Semitic movement by the International Socialist Congress of 1891. After this, anti-Semitism became quite consistently a phenomenon of conservatism or the anti-democratic right. (p. 176)

Now, consider this revised statement from 1985:

Toussenel ranks high among the high priests of socialist antisemitism, which enlisted in varying degrees such names as Pierre Proudhon, Karl Marx, Bruno Bauer, and lesser lights, all of whom trained their guns on Jewish "unproductiveness", "parasitism," and the like. The association of Socialist with antisemitism came to an end officially with the condemnation of the antisemitic movement at the International Socialist Congress of 1891, but this did not spell its end in socialist reality. On the other hand, increasingly and more consistently antisemitism became an attribute of conservatism and the anti-democratic right. (p. 177)

It would be interesting to speculate on the reasons for this change, and particularly on whether or not it had anything to do with increased criticism of Israel from the Left after 1967. One way or the other, it seems inappropriate for us to reference Flannery's 1985 comments on antisemitism and socialism without drawing his 1965 comments into the picture in some way.

You're engaged in OR. This is what the author wrote, period. SlimVirgin 20:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

My point is that we shouldn't convey Flannery's 1985 argument without also conveying his 1965 argument. CJCurrie 22:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. His views may have evolved, but you can't use original research to try to revert his most current views, based on earlier works. Jayjg 17:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I've argued that we should provide *both* statements, or neither. And, anyway, the 1985 edition is demonstrably less reliable than the 1965 edition. CJCurrie 17:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Demonstrably poor scholarship

Most of the cited text is taken from two paragraphs on p. 274 of Flannery's 1985 edition:

Antisemitism is generally considered by both Jews and non-Jews to be a phenomenon of the Right. And certainly in modern times its most spectacular displays, exemplified by Czarist pogroms, the Dreyfus Affair, Hitler, and chauvinistic demagogues, have tended to justify that interpretation. But this view has tended to eclipse the fact that there has been an uninterrupted strain of antisemitism on the Left. It should not, further, obscure the recrudescence of leftist antisemitism that has developed since the rebirth of the State of Israel. Indeed at present leftist "anti-Zionism" predominates on the antisemitic spectrum - a spectrum running leftward from liberal to socialist to radical to Communist. Prager and Telushkin put the matter succinctly: "The further Left one goes, the greater the antisemitism." W.D. Rubenstein is no less direct: "Today, the main enemies of the Jews and Israel are almost exclusively on the left, most obviously the Communist states, the radical Third World anti-Zionist nations and their sympathizers in the West."

This development comes as no surprise to historians of leftist ideology. From its inception socialist thought took on an antisemitic turn. All the progenitors of socialist theory, with the exception of St. Simon, were bitter antisemites. Marx learned much of his own antisemitism from Proudhon, Bauer, Fourier, Toussenel, Fichte, and others, as did also Engels. The Protocols came from socialist sources. In 1891, the Second International Socialist Congress refused to condemn antisemitism without condemning philosemitism at the same time. During the Dreyfus affair socialist leaders refused to counter the rightist attack on the Jewish army officer. Historian Zosa Szajkowski, writing in 1947 after a close study of French socialist literature, concluded that he could not find a single word on behalf of the Jews in the whole of that literature from 1820 to 1920.

There are a number of problems here.

Szajkowski

There is one (1) footnote for the second paragraph:

See Zosa Szajkowski, "The Jewish Saint-Simonians and Socialist Antisemitism in France" in Jewish Social Studies, January, 1947, cited in Prager and Telushkin, op. cit., p. 142.

It's a shame that Flannery didn't take the time to check the original source. If he had, he might have discovered this statement: "In quoting only the antisemitic pronouncements of the French socialists, before Edouard Drumont, the writer may be suspected of having ignored the pro-Jewish sentiments. In order to ally any such suspicion, the writer wishes therefore to say explicitly that his efforts to find sympathetic references to Jews in the French socialist literature, from Saint-Simon to the date of Drumont's first appearance, have been futile" (p. 60) Drumont's first appearance was in 1886.

Flannery might have also discovered the following statement, had he looked up the original essay: "It was not until antisemitism had joined hands with the "Boulangist" reaction (1889) that some socialist groups have become aware of the danger and started to fight against antisemitism" (p. 59; tense error in original). He certainly wouldn't have made his lunatic suggestion that Szajkowski found not "a single word on behalf of the Jews" in French socialist literature before *1920*, nor would he have suggested the "all the progenitors of socialist theory, with the exception of St. Simon, were bitter antisemites".

(I should add that Szajkowski's essay is an erudite scholarly piece, and deserves a better legacy than being used to prop up Father Flannery's efforts to malign the Left as antisemitic. An interesting fact I learned from the essay is that Fourier apparently concealed his antisemitism behind facetious support for a plan to move Europe's Jews en masse to Palestine.)

Dreyfus

During the Dreyfus affair socialist leaders refused to counter the rightist attack on the Jewish army officer.

This statement is profoundly misleading. It's true that the "integral" faction of French socialism didn't participate in the campaign to exonerate Dreyfus (see Szajkowski, p. 59), but someone of Flannery's experience must surely have known that *most* French socialist leaders were active Dreyfusards. For him to suggest otherwise is intellectually dishonest, and for *us* to repeat this suggestion is profoundly unencyclopedic.

Protocols

On the subject of lunatic suggestions, may I assume that no one reviewing this page is willing to defend Flannery's unreferenced suggestion that "Protocols" was derived from socialist sources?

Summary

In light of these errors, I do not believe that the 1985 edition of Flannery's book should be considered a reliable source for the history of "new antisemitism".

I see that SlimVirgin didn't respond to this section. CJCurrie 22:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course not. You continue to engage in original research in your efforts to refute Flannery's work. However, Flannery is a reliable source; you, on the other hand, are an anonymous Misplaced Pages editor. Jayjg 17:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I've presented evidence that Flannery's 1985 edition is not a reliable source. You've ignored it, and I suspect that you're not taking the process seriously. How on earth is it possible for you to twist "OR" and "V" to suggest that we should present Flannery's demonstrably false statements as fact? CJCurrie 17:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You're engaged in OR. Please read the policy. SlimVirgin 19:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I have (read it), and I'm not. Feel free to demonstrate otherwise, if you can. CJCurrie 19:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Probable misrepresentation

Our summary describes Prager and Telushkin as having written, "The further Left one goes, the greater the antisemitism." This comment is presented in isolation, and without further clarification as to their intentions. The effect may be to have readers believe Prager and Telushkin were referring to a "left to right" spectrum. To judge from Flannery's remarks, however, it appears more likely that they were referring to a "left to *centre*" spectrum.

Unfortunately, I was not able to obtain a copy of Prager and Telushkin's book before writing my comments. I suspect, however, that the current edit may be a distortion of their true intentions. I am not suggesting that this was deliberate.

This is all your original research. SlimVirgin 20:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's my evaluation of the way Flannery presents the source. The current article statement is for all intents and purposes a selective half-quote. CJCurrie 22:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

In other words, more original research attempts to refute Flannery's work. Where has your refutation been published? Jayjg 17:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I've presented evidence that Flannery's 1985 edition is not a reliable source. You've ignored it. I don't need to publish a refutation to justify *removing* an unreliable source from the article. CJCurrie 17:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Sliding definitions

Flannery's statement that "Extreme leftist ideologies and traditional Judaism are almost by definition incompatible" is not relevant to this article. Opposition to "traditional Judaism" is not, in and of itself, generally recognized as sufficient proof of antisemitism, let alone of "new antisemitism". (Are secular Jews who reject their religious backgrounds automatically considered antisemites? Of course not. For that matter, are Reform Jews who reject Kashrut considered antisemites? Of course not.)

He writes: "Extreme leftist ideologies and traditional Judaism are almost by definition incompatible." He doesn't say that opposition to traditional Judaism must be antisemitism; nor is not keeping kosher opposition to Judaism. This is all your own opinion, CJC, and you're slipping and sliding between topics making category errors. SlimVirgin 20:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

If he's not saying it's antisemitism, then why are we including it in this article? CJCurrie 22:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It may be possible to incorporate Flannery's statements on the Left and particularism into the article, but I doubt there's any compelling need to do this in light of his credibility issues on other fronts.

Summary

For all of these reasons, it is clear to me that the Flannery paragraph is not encyclopedic, and needs to be removed from the article. It may be possible to restore Rubinstein's quote at some point in the future, but only if we reference the original source.

I've put a fair bit of time into researching these matters. I trust that any editor who wishes to restore the Flannery paragraph will review my comments, and address my arguments.

Please add your comments after this line. CJCurrie 06:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Response

• CJC, you've done everything possible since you started editing this article to remove references to left-wing antisemitism. It's unseemly, it's wrong-headed, and it's pointless. There's a lot of it around, and increasingly so; every week more articles are published about it. You're swimming against the tide trying to pretend it doesn't exist. Flannery provides some background indicating that it's nothing new. This will give the reader an interesting context within which to study the development of the concept of NAS, and we're here to provide exactly that kind of background material. SlimVirgin 20:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Slim, whoever doubted that there was some antisemitism on the left? I've never objected to actual left-wing antisemitism being highlighted in this article, as appropriate. What I'm opposing is an attempt to use flawed scholarship to suggest a "continuous line" of antisemitism dominating the left. CJCurrie 22:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Please note: Itsmejudith's next post is a response to my original statement, not to SlimVirgin. CJCurrie 22:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Agree, as you would expect. Since Flannery's book was first published in 1965 it cannot be relevant to the definition in the second paragraph of the article, that NAS is the upsurge in antisemitism after 2001. It seems to me, again, that we need good articles on the History of antisemitism in the 19th century, to which the Flannery comments cited here seem to apply, History of antisemitism in the 20th century and History of antisemitism in the 21st century.Itsmejudith 09:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

This is an impressive and well-researched argument, CJ. I fully concur with your conclusions here. john k 21:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Disagree with continual attempts to bury antisemitism from the left. It astonishes me that the history section can contain statements from Pierre-André Taguieff regarding antisemitism from the left following the 1967 Six-Day War, a whole long section about Forster and Epstein's 1974 book (inserted only so that the "famous scholar" - i.e. anti-Zionist polemicist Allen Brownfeld can insert his own political views attempting to refute the concept), statements from Robert Wistrich Abba Eban in the 1980s regarding the phenomenon, etc., yet people here can still claim that it is all about "the upsurge in antisemitism after 2001", and attempt to exclude Flannery on those grounds. Why was there no objection when the Brownfeld material about books in the 1970s was inserted, yet Flannery's material is somehow too early? If those who object to the concept want to be taken seriously, they must start reading the article, reading ALL the relevant material, and editing with the intent of elucidating, not obfuscating. Jayjg 21:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• • There's a bit of a difference between the 1970s and the 19th century, Jay. Meanwhile, I see you haven't actually responded to any of my arguments. CJCurrie 22:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well if you want to look at it like that then there was even more left-wing anti-semitism in the 19th century. This is due to the fact that during the period of the great European empires the dominant left-wing ideology was essentially various forms of nationalism. We all know how tolerant they can be.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • They've already been responded to; in a nutshell, your original research regarding sources doesn't really trump WP:V. Jayjg 04:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Have you read my initial comments, Jay? CJCurrie 05:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Yes. Have you read WP:NOR and WP:V? Jayjg 17:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Yes, and I've presented evidence that Flannery's 1985 edition is not a reliable source. You've ignored it, and I don't believe that you're taking the process seriously. "NOR" was never meant to be used as a justification for retaining obviously unsuitable material. CJCurrie 17:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
            • You're engaged in your own original research in order to denigrate a source that you disagree with. If Flannery had been writing about right-wing antisemitism, you wouldn't bat an eyelid about him being used. Please read the content policies. SlimVirgin 19:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
              • I've read the policies, and they don't apply here. If I were trying to submit information *on an article page* that Flannery's source is unreliable, then I'd be in violation of NOR ... but there's nothing in the policy that prevents me from *removing* information on the grounds that the source is unreliable. And stop the personal abuse, please. CJCurrie 19:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
                • Of course NOR applies. You're imposing on the source your own opinion of the issues, then trying to rule the source out on that basis. The point is that left-wing antisemitism is a major part of NAS, and so in the history section we give some information about what people have said about the existence of left-wing antisemitism prior to the emergence of the concept. Flannery is one the best known writers on the history of AS, and so we use him. SlimVirgin 19:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • • • • • Isn't there a little humor in accusing somebody of "engaging" in original research? And to mean by that, when somebody looks through a source and finds it actually says something else? I'm pretty sure this situation needs a comic more than it needs a debate... Mackan79 19:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
                  • Indeed. I can't believe this is even being raised as a serious argument. (Meanwhile, I will reiterate the "NAS" is *not* "a history of left-wing antisemitism", and the material on Fourier, Proudhon et al is completely irrelevant.) CJCurrie 20:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
                    • In your opinion, it is completely irrelevant. You must write to the publishers of the book to complain. In the meantime, we have chosen a classic history of antisemitism from which to quote a few points about the author's view on the background to leftwing antisemitism, which he concludes is no surprise because the values of traditional Judaism and the values of the far left are, in his opinion, incompatible. It doesn't matter whether you agree. It doesn't matter whether you think he's a lunatic. His book is well known in antisemitism studies, and that is what he says. Period. And the history of NAS is very much related to the history of leftwing antisemitism. I know this makes you shudder, but left-wing antisemitism is the major aspect of the NAS concept. As long as I've seen you editing here, you've never understood that neither the article nor its talk page are the place for your personal opinions and original research. If you have other arguments against the inclusion of that paragraph, I'm willing to listen to them, or if you think it should be written differently, or shortened or whatever, but that you don't like what he says is not a reason to remove it. Or if Mel comes up with an argument against, I'll abide by his decision. But I can't listen to you try for the thousandth time to get rid of a source because you want to protect the left from allegations of antisemitism. SlimVirgin 21:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
                      • Slim, Edward Flannery's *1965* book is a classic history of antisemitism. His 1985 "updated version" is a unreliable and unworthy follow-up, which wasn't even published by an accredited firm. You're playing on confusion between the two editions to keep flawed, unreliable and in at least one case *false* information included the article. Btw, I didn't say *Flannery* was a lunatic: I said that two of his assertions were sheer lunacy (and I stand by this). I'm not going to respond to your personal attacks, but I'll reiterate that the views of early 19th century socialists are irrelevant to this article. I maintain that any fair-minded, uninvolved party will agree with my conclusions. Cheers, CJCurrie 22:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

May I please reiterate my request that any editor who wishes to restore the Flannery paragraph please review my comments, and address my arguments. CJCurrie 01:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm truly baffled as to how to interpret this: . CJCurrie 09:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Who are you that you think you should be allowed to delete whatever you want prior to discussion, but everyone else MUST discuss before they restore it? I'm sure it's no cooincidence that you want to get rid of someone who talks about the "uninterrupted strain of antisemitism on the Left." Please stop being so predictable. SlimVirgin 09:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Slim, I took the time to prepare a detailed explanation of why the Flannery section is inappropriate for the article. I avoided personal abuse, and focused on evidence. Could you please do the same, if you want the section returned?

And to answer your question, I deleted the section because it obviously didn't meet the standard for inclusion, in light of my investigations. Do you honestly think it should be returned? CJCurrie 09:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You posted your explanation of the deletion one minute before removing the material i.e. prior to any discussion. Could you explain why you feel you are allowed to do this, but others must discuss before restoring it? SlimVirgin 09:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

With respect, Slim, I think this we're getting a bit off-track. I'm "entitled" to remove material that's obviously unsuitable for the article, and I've explained in detail why I made that decision in this instance. If entitlement is the issue, I could just as easily ask why you initially included the paragraph with no prior discussion.

The question we should be addressing is the following: does the Flannery material belong in the article? So far, you have not addressed any of my arguments. CJCurrie 09:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

We're not getting off track. If you're entitled to remove without discussion, others are entitled to restore and ask you to discuss it first. Do not remove it again until there has been a proper discussion about it, because there are people who disagree with you. Practise what you preach, please. SlimVirgin 09:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Slim, have you read my original comments? CJCurrie 09:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I haven't because they're so long, but if you stop reverting, I'll read them and try to address your points, and then perhaps we could try to have a civilized discussion instead of the usual reverting and carping. I know it sounds unlikely but I live in hope. SlimVirgin 09:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm prepared to leave the Flannery paragraph on the page for as long as another day, if you promise to read my comments during that time. I'm not at all impressed that you would restore the paragraph three times without so much as reviewing my arguments. CJCurrie 10:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

And I'm not impressed that you think it's okay to keep on removing something over objections. If you post material as lengthy as you have, in fairness you have to allow people a few days to read and respond to it. SlimVirgin 10:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

If you read my comments fairly, you'll understand why it would be inappropriate to leave the paragraph in place for that long. CJCurrie 10:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• For now I'll say this: based on what I've seen, I can't go as far as calling Flannery completely irrelevant, since it does speak to the debate about whether "New Antisemitism" is actually new. The conflict between the two editions, though, seems a much more serious issue. To that, I'll simply say the the two things which particularly raise flags for me are the "The further left the more antisemitism" statement, and the "Nobody could find a positive word" statement, simply because they're little rhetorical bombshells, presented offhand, and both two degrees from the original context. In that situation, I think you can present an individual's general argument, but you shouldn't quote little snippets of highly controversial evidence in a way that obscures the original meaning (left of center or left of right or what? As CJ nicely points out). Other than that, I wouldn't insist on removing everything, but I think CJ makes a good case that the whole thing needs an update, which may well make it unsuitable. Mackan79 19:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, for "The further left the more antisemitism" check out Bakunin#Anti-Semitism. <<-armon->> 13:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Agree that the paragraph should be removed. CJ has made a detailed case (talk page original research of the very best kind) for why the 1985 edition is not an RS. The only attempted rebuttal to this has been the claim that "Flannery was the author of both editions. He is our source." This is sophistry. Reliable-source status is not a permanent and inalienable endowment of biographical persons; it arises from a configuration of factors surrounding the publication of any given material (as anyone who's ever tried to cite material from a prominent person's blog, for example, will know very well). Flannery hasn't taken a swan-dive into intellectual ignominy á la David Irving, but he does appear to have untethered himself from the rigors of vetted scholarship and dropped gently into the bosom of a religious press, where he is free to enjoy the languors of self-publication and make grotesque farm-league errors of the sort CJ catalogues. Until we see a serious rebuttal to CJ on this point, the 1985 edition is out. As for the 1965 edition, for us to imply and endorse the explanatory relevance of a book published two years before the earliest postulated appearance of the phenomenon under discussion – ! – is article-page original research of the very worst kind.--G-Dett 22:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Moot I'm truly amazed at this complete flouting of WP:OR and WP:V -hello, "verifiability, not truth". This is more than original research, it's oppo on an RS the editor doesn't agree with. This is completely beyond scope. Imagine if we were to start "fact-checking" the millions of sources in WP to the same degree! The later edition loses RS status because it was published by Catholics during the cold war? C'mon, there are any number of equally plausible theories we could advance for him shifting publishers. However, unless you've got an RS -not some wild theory- noting some sort of decline in his scholarship, it's simply a moot point. Well crafted though -I'll grant him that. That must explain how it's seduced a few editors here. <<-armon->> 13:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

OR means putting original research into articles. Looking back at sources and checking their citations is something we should be doing, and I'm impressed that CJCurrie has done so. The idea that we should discourage such things is ridiculous. CJCurrie is suggesting that we remove information from an article because it is inaccurate, and he has provided plenty of sources to demonstrate this inaccuracy. The idea that it should be included anyway because what CJ has done constitutes "original research" seems entirely mystifying to me. It seems to me that including Flannery and implying that his comments have anything to do with "new antisemitism" is a "novel synthesis," and as such, is much more clearly an instance of original research than anything CJCurrie has done. john k 14:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The statements are clearly attributed to Flannery. We have not made the claims, someone in an RS has. Like I said, -moot. Let's pick another example. Suppose I wanted to take issue with Tariq Ali's statement that Israel is "the strongest state in the region. It possesses real, not imaginary, weapons of mass destruction. It possesses more tanks and bomber jets and pilots than the rest of the Arab world put together." I could go, do a bunch of OR about the aggregate military strength of the "Arab world" (I could define this loosely if I liked) and could possibly produce an equally well-crafted dissertation on Ali's "unreliability", and blah blah blah. It's mission creep of the worst sort, and any topic touching on ME issues is contentious enough without it. Hmmm, maybe that's why WP:V exists? <<-armon->> 02:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, maybe that's why WP:V exists?

To permit false information to be included in articles? I doubt it.

Seriously, why are people so keen to allow a demonstrably untrue piece of information to be retained? CJCurrie 02:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

"Verifiability, not truth" is to stop WP editors from engaging in utterly pointless arguments with sources. It's not our job. As for why I'm "so keen to allow a demonstrably untrue piece of information to be retained" -it's because I'm also not interested in doing a pointless peer-review of your work. I'm lazy that way. <<-armon->> 03:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I doubt anything I say will make any difference to you one way or the other, but it's entirely our job to confirm the reliability of sources.

My interlocuters seem to have taken the absurd position that we should include material which is false, but verifiable. As they obviously aren't taking this seriously, I can't see any way forward besides mediation. CJCurrie 03:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

But what would be the point? <<-armon->> 04:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

To resolve this silliness as soon as possible. Feel free not to participate, if the prospect doesn't interest you. CJCurrie 04:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

OK then drop it. Look, at every step in the chain of dispute resolution you're going to be told pretty much the exact same thing I just did. You're only going to cause yourself stress by pursuing a lost cause like this. <<-armon->> 01:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Armon, your point about mission creep deserves careful thought. But the Tariq Ali analogy isn't a very good one. It's a rhetorical statement; it's the kind of thing a reader will already take with a grain of salt. What if Tariq Ali, in a self-published book, grossly misquoted someone? What if he wrote, relying on faulty memory in an unvetted volume, that Alan Dershowitz had argued for the sudden, unannounced destruction of entire Palestinian villages in retaliation for terrorist acts? (Dershowitz argued that the IDF should do this 24 hours after an announcement, so that residents would have the chance to evacuate). Would it be acceptable for us to simply repeat the mistake – in our own words, no less? This is the kind of analogy we have to consider.--G-Dett 03:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See above. <<-armon->> 03:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• • My "wild theory" involved looking up an essay from 1947 and discovering that it had been misused. CJCurrie 01:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion that the essay was "misused" is, frankly, worthless. Sorry, Flannery trumps anon Misplaced Pages editor. Jayjg 01:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Jay, could you explain why you're insisting on including factually inaccurate information in the article? (Hasn't anyone else looked up Szajkowski's essay by now?) CJCurrie 01:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Please review leading question. Jayjg 01:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

My question is both accurate and appropriate. Flannery makes a false statement about Szajkowski's essay, which our article repeats. It's remarkable that you and SlimVirgin would defend retention of this reference. CJCurrie 01:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

To repeat: why are you restoring factually inaccurate information to the article? CJCurrie 02:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Jay, you've chosen to revert, on the rhetorical grounds that Flannery trumps CJ. Can I ask why you've left this sentence in: "He cites historian Zosa Szajkowski, who writes that he could not find a 'single word on behalf of Jews' in the entirety of French socialist literature from 1820 to 1920," which we know now to be false? Let us bracket for the moment the question of whether Flannery belongs at all. You think he does, so you restore him. But why not at least correct the sentence? Or at the very least, quote Flannery at greater length, so the falsehood is in his words and not ours? I'm not suggesting that this would suffice; I'm just trying to understand your negotiating posture. Is the point to show maximum contempt for CJ, as your edit summaries and posts here would suggest? Or do you not trust his legwork and believe him to be lying? Or is there a categorical principle involved here for you, that Misplaced Pages editors are to treat as infallible any assertions made by an RS? That even a modest editorial decision to put dubious claims in quotation marks, for example, rather than in free-indirect, so as to put a buffer between the voice of Misplaced Pages and manifestly false statements, would constitute OR? If there is some other principle involved, could you explain it please – in reasoned, detailed sentences, and not another crypto-sarcastic diktat?--G-Dett 02:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

To Slim and Jay

I notice that neither one of you has directly addressed my arguments concerning the unsuitability of Flannery's arguments to this article. That's unfortunate, but not entirely surprising. What I find a bit more troubling is that neither of you has made any efforts to even *correct* the paragraph, based on what I've written. In its current form, the article presents Flannery's flawed scholarship as though it were accurate and credible. This is clearly unacceptable.

Seriously, does either of you honestly believe that a neutral editor (Mel Etitis, for instance, or Jmabel) would favour retention of the Flannery paragraph in light of the arguments I've presented? I doubt it.

The current Flannery paragraph is remarkably unencyclopedic, and has absolutely no business being here. I'm going to remove it again, and I'm going to request that you not restore it. If you want to return it in a revised form, please discuss it on the talk page first. CJCurrie 22:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd have no objection to asking Mel Etitis to take a look, and I'd be willing to stick by his decision. SlimVirgin 16:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I've already asked Mel to review the controversy. He hasn't responded yet. CJCurrie 16:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

(And no, I didn't promise to leave the paragraph in place for a full day. I said I'd leave it in place *up to* a full day, on condition that SlimVirgin take advantage of the opportunity to read my comments.) CJCurrie 22:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Stop being so pompous, please. SlimVirgin 16:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

HERE HERE!- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I can understand your point that the material is somewhat different than most of the article's other passages, but I think it generally follows the same line of argument that the rest of the article follows. You might disagree with the conlusions of Flannery, but wikipedia policy states that relevant material from a reputable and reliable source is permitted. I also cannot agree with everything that the author says (most of the progenitors of socialism may have been anti-Jewish religion, but I wouldn't state that most of them were necessarily anti-semitic), however I think that the jist of it is not particularly controversial.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

My feeling is that a self-published work (which for all intents and purposes the 1985 version was) which suggests "Protocols" was derived from socialist sources is not reliable. When you add in the other errors, it becomes even less so. When you add the question of relevance, it becomes profoundly unencyclopedic. (The fact that the paragraph is referenced is entirely beside the point.)

I maintain that a genuinely neutral editor would almost certainly conclude that the paragraph should be removed.

So ... how long do I have to wait before removing the paragraph again, if I'm to avoid being accused of "gaming the system"? CJCurrie 01:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It's an almost insignificant point but Flannery was not writing about the "new antisemitism". He wrote long before the rightists who inform this article had invented the term. Including the passage about him is a new low in what is already a terrible piece of POV pushing masquerading as an article. It's entirely OR to suggest that his analysis has anything whatsoever to do with the "concept" that is under "discussion" in this article. I just don't see how we can justify having a section on the "history" of something that exists mostly in the minds of contributors here and a few of the more frothy pro-Israeli commentators, when it isn't simply an epithet thrown around by those who think Israel should have carte blanche for whatever reason. Grace Note 03:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I did my best to revise it as appropriate. I have no idea who will like this or not. Possibly it only makes for a stronger argument, suggesting that Flannery saw the error of his ways. Anyway, I'm not endorsing it or anything, but simply thought it would be interesting to try it out based on CJ's new sources. Mackan79 03:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate what you're trying to do, Mackan, but I think the paragraph is beyond hope one way or the other. Why on earth should we convey *anything* from a work which posits that "Protocols" was derived from socialist sources, and has other obvious errors besides? Sorry, but I still think the paragraph has to go. CJCurrie 03:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I definitely think there's a concern that I've now given him much more weight than is appropriate. I simply think somebody had to try it to see. When I got done I had a sudden realization that probably nobody was going to like me for that one :P Mackan79 03:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Updated remarks

I had been hoping that a greater number of uninvolved and neutral editors would have provided their views on this matter by now. I'm a bit concerned that this "controversy" could soon degenerate into the usual stale bickering between SlimVirgin's supporters and SlimVirgin's opponents; a few outside voices would be useful to ensuring that this unwelcome prospect doesn't come to fruition. I thank John Kenney for weighing in on this matter, and I hope others will follow in his footsteps.

For the time being, it will probably occasion little surprise among readers that I'm not convinced by the counter-arguments of Slim and Jay. Their comments about "Original Research" are especially puzzling: the NOR policy is designed to prevent editors from *adding* unverifiable and novel research, not to prevent editors from removing obviously flawed research. I'm also uncertain as to how a source that misinterprets Szajkowski by 34 years and claims "Protocols" as socialist-derived can honestly or accurately be described as reliable. To give credit where it's due, I appreciate that Moshe hasn't resorted to any transparent policy distortions in his remarks. (Even though I disagree with his conclusions, I appreciate that Moshe is approaching this discussion in a reasonable manner.) CJCurrie 06:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that any of my compatriots have resorted to "transparent policy distortions" either.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say they did. CJCurrie 06:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

As no-one has provided a convincing reason why the paragraph should be retained, I will remove it again presently. I am fully aware of the significance of my actions, and I believe that any neutral editor reviewing this situation would conclude that the paragraph should not have been returned in the first place. I can only wonder how much longer Slim and Jay will insist on defending an obviously unsuitable source. CJCurrie 06:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Looking over it again, I had to laugh, just because the section became much more POV pro-1985-Flannery than it did undermine him (my intent wasn't to do either, but I figured by combining them it would become clear that the material didn't belong). In any case, the paragraphs are clearly out of place. This is a section on the history of New Antisemitism, not a section for controversial and dubious single-person opinions not even speaking to that topic. In the sections below, of course, that's exactly what we provide: various individual scholars' opinions on the New Antisemitism. Here, we're supposed to be providing a neutral section on the history of New Antisemitism. I'm pretty sure nobody can make the case that Flannery 1985 represents a fair and neutral chronicle of antisemitism on the left through history. Quite obviously it's two paragraphs of idiosyncratic opinion, considering that it completely reversed itself over a period of 20 years. Unless someone explains otherwise, I completely support CJCurrie's decision to remove it.Mackan79 06:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Question to Jay: Is there any basis for quoting the second less influential book rather than the first more influential book which says the opposite? Mackan79

The revised edition of a book always reflects the author's intent better, and the most recent scholarship. Jayjg 01:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Lordy, this is rich. The original version was published by a credible firm; the "revised version" was effectively self-published and is demonstrably inaccurate. I think these facts may trump the "temporal factor" somewhat. CJCurrie 01:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Question for Jay

What's the logic of re-inserting Flannery's inaccurate statement about Zosa Szajkowski?

It's fairly obvious this situation is degenerating into a full-blown edit war. I'm going to refrain from removing the paragraph again for the time being, in the hope that more uninvolved editors will weigh in shortly. I maintain that the paragraph has absolutely no business being in the article, and I'm prepared to take the matter as far as formal mediation if need be.

For the moment, I'm going to put a fact-disputed notice on the section. The current edit includes the following line: "He cites historian Zosa Szajkowski, who writes that he could not find a "single word on behalf of Jews" in the entirety of French socialist literature from 1820 to 1920." Szajkowski does not write this. CJCurrie 16:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Update: I've chosen a "dubious" notice instead. Consider it as applied to the whole paragraph. CJCurrie 16:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Update: I've filed an RfC. CJCurrie 17:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Update: SlimVirgin has decided that she may arbitrarily change the content of my RfC. (I've already reverted it). CJCurrie 04:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC) See also: ,

Update: SlimVirgin has again decided that she may arbitrarily change the content of my RfC. CJCurrie 04:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Your RfC?? SlimVirgin 14:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I know this has gotten contentious, but my suggestion would really be to try editing the passage down, and then if it doesn't work, shoot for elimination at that point. While my attempt was a little ridiculous, I could potentially see a paragraph noting Flannery's changing position. Ideally, we'd then have a counter-source, but without going into a huge amount of detail that gives this perspective undue weight. Regarding a discussion of New Antisemitism, I think a fair treatment of historical antisemitism on the Left is relevant to the subject. What we have now simply isn't fair. It's one perspective, and actually more like half a perspective. If we could make it a fair discussion, we might be able to accomodate both sides. A categorical yes or no would be nice and easy, I'm simply skeptical it's going to resolve that way either way.

One might consider what an actual encyclopedia would say on something like this: it wouldn't be quoting one scholar at length to establish the history of a subject. That's a good way to discuss theory, but it's a bad way to establish history. Mackan79 16:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a great suggestion, Mackan79. Slim has pointed out that several writers on this topic cite Flannery; if they grant him central importance, then maybe we can refer to his work by way of their use of it. Of course, the immediate thing is to make sure we're not simply repeating and disseminating the errors in Flannery's work that CJ pointed out.--G-Dett 16:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

About "Original Research"

This is the essence of Misplaced Pages's Original Research policy: "Articles may not contain any unpublished material, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position."

There is nothing in the policy that prevents me from challenging the reliability of a source on the talk page, nor is there anything in the policy that prevents me from removing obviously flawed information.

I hope that uninvolved parties reading this page will understand the defensive cry of "No original research" for what it is: an excuse, and a deflection. CJCurrie 19:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree – the charge here is spurious to its very core. Article pages can't have original research; talk pages can. The editorial process indeed consists of 90%+ original research, but it is rarely of this depth and judiciousness.--G-Dett 21:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Doing "original research" and presenting it on a talk page as a reason for removing material from an article cannot possibly violate any wikipedia policy. john k 23:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

John, you've always objected to the OR policy, and you're not very familar with it. We can't have editors impose their personal views on source material that's regarded by scholars of antisemitism as reliable and worth using in their own work. If other people use it, we may use it too, even if CJCurrie doesn't like it. SlimVirgin 14:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Slim, try to avoid strawman arguments: John hasn't "objected to OR policy," he's objected to what he sees as a fallacious invocation of it. Indeed, a central element of his objection to the current interpolation of the Flannery material (and it's an objection I've voiced here as well) is that "including Flannery and implying that his comments have anything to do with 'new antisemitism' is a 'novel synthesis,'" and therefore a violation of WP:OR. --G-Dett 15:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

As G-Dett says. Additionally, your argument here seems completely untenable. An encyclopedia article has to be selective. It has to make choices about what it talks about. There is no obligation to include any particular claims, or lengthy summaries of the work of a single scholar, particularly when such claims can be demonstrated to be tendentious and dubious by looking at the sources cited by Flannery himself. And I don't object to the OR policy, and I am perfectly familiar with it. I think the OR policy is necessary and great, but that it has to be interpreted reasonably and sanely, and that there have been some problems with interpreting "OR" very broadly. In this particular case I think that the key issue is that OR policy applies to article content, not to talk page discussion. The change to the article suggested by CJCurrie is to remove the discussion of Flannery. The article sans discussion of Flannery would not contain any original research, so there is no violation of WP:NOR. The issue is not whether a change to an article is made based on "original research." It's whether the article itself becomes a vehicle for promoting original research. Removing the Flannery stuff would not make the article a vehicle for promoting CJ's critique of Flannery. It would simply remove the Flannery stuff. It would be OR to add CJ's critique of Flannery to the article, but nobody is advocating that. Furthermore, as G-Dett says above, and I have suggested before, the inclusion of Flannery's discussion of 19th century antisemitism in the context of an article about "new antisemitism" supposedly arising after 1967, at earliest, is deeply problematic. Certainly by the standards you have expressed on many previous occasions, SV, we should have to find some sources which discuss Flannery's discussion of 19th century antisemitism, in particular, in the context of a discussion of "New Antisemitism." Either way, including the Flannery material seems a lot closer to OR than removing it would be. john k 16:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

A thought

One of the guiding principles of Misplaced Pages's editorial policy is that verifiability, rather than truth, is the standard for any piece of information to be included on an article page. That is, editors who wish to include *accurate* information on an article page must be able to demonstrate that the information has been published by a credible source.

This policy is meant to prevent editors from disseminating unverifiable personal knowledge (eg. "Celebrity X ran over my dog!"), and from promoting novel and untested theories (eg. "Were we too quick to dismiss phrenology?").

To judge from recent discussions, however, this principle may be open to abuse and misinterpretation. Slim, Jay et al almost seem to have inverted the principle, to suggest that demonstrably *inaccurate* information may be deemed encyclopedic if it appears in a reliable source (what?). They also seem to be suggesting that efforts to demonstrate the inaccuracy of such information are contrary to Misplaced Pages policy. This, of course, is nonsense.

I had hoped that neutral editors would have weighed in the Flannery controversy by now. Since that hasn't happened, I will remove the paragraph again. I make no apologies for doing this, as I emphatically do not require anyone's permission to remove demonstrably false information from the article.

To anyone who wishes to return the paragraph, I offer the following challenge: Why should we include false, misleading and irrelevant material from a book that was for all intents and purposes self-published? ("But the author wrote a classic study twenty years earlier!" is not a suitable response.) CJCurrie 01:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Please review leading question. Jayjg 01:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Should we just take this to mediation now, given that your side doesn't seem interested in debating the substance of the issue? CJCurrie 01:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

History of

With regard to Ben's comment above. Ben, are you saying that it would not be useful to have historical articles as I suggested? I am not saying that it would resolve all the issues but surely it wouldn't hinder anything. I am not sure why you think the result would be that the Antisemitism and New antisemitism articles would be the same. As I see it, the Antisemitism article would carry all the main definitional work including the distinctions between religious and racial forms and the New antisemitism article would be devoted to that idea/concept/whatever in particular. BTW within the historical series I am most interested in the medieval period and hope to be making most edits to that, not to the 19th century onward.Itsmejudith 10:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the point of new antisemitism is that it is somehow distinct from antisemitism. I'm still not clear how, but your proposal that "This article is about the general concept of antisemitism" would lose that distinction. Having lost that distinction, there would be no difference between the two articles. But maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're proposing.

I can see value in pages on the history of antisemitism, and maybe on the history of new antisemitism as well, assuming it is not one and the same. I can imagine a good article with the heading Antisemtisim in the medieval period, though IMHO such articles are usually best started as sections in a larger article and extracted once they grow big enough. That said, some users do like to write complete articles, by themselves, to WP:FA candidate status, before letting anyone else at them. Not my style, but perfectly valid. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The history of new antisemitism and this article would be the same thing. SlimVirgin 21:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

For the moment, yes. Maybe one day we will have enough to say that each earns its own page, but at this moment, history of new antisemitism only justifies a section in this page. Cheers, Ben Aveling 23:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

There is already Jews in the Middle Ages and since that deals largely with oppression and persecution then a separate article on antisemitism in the Middle Ages is not needed. As for a history of New antisemitism, then it would have to be a history of the term/concept/idea. In a few years time that article will be written. It will say that the term became current in the early 2000s as a response to a sudden upsurge of antisemitic activity and to changes in the type of antisemitic discourse but that usage of the term soon faded away when it became apparent that the resurgence was better described simply as antisemitism without the new. An article on antisemitism in the 21st century will say that there was an upsurge in the early years of the century but that it had soon died down after a peace settlement in the Middle East. (Just hoping for the best...)Itsmejudith 22:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You should how little you know about the history of antisemitism if you hope for the best, sadly. SlimVirgin 14:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Reverts by Slim Virgin and Al Silverburg

I have attempted to improve this article by two simple edits. One was to change the sentence changing the words "not not be" is "is not" with regards to legitimate anti Isreali opposition. This is to try to ensure that this article does not come off as promoting POV. Use of the words "need not be" as the article states currently implies anti-semitism on the part of people who oppose Israel. In other words, "need not be" is a loaded phrase and puts POV into the article, and should be eliminated. Slim Virgin reverted on the basis that it was taken from a quote when clearly it was not. I will revert this back, unless anything else is posted. Secondly, there has been a platitude state at the end of the United States section. It is a useless sentence that says something to the effect that the United Nations Human Rights Committee spent more than half of its time on Israel, more time than all countries combined. It may seem petty to argue style. But clearly, there is no need to point out that more than half is majority. Any idiot with basic arithmetic skills could see that. However, it has been reverted twice. Therefore, I am reverting that section back to the way it should be. There is no reason to have the back of that sentence. Nlsanand 00:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

With regards to the passage about the time the UN spent on Israel, it is important to add emphasis to the implications of the commisions actions, therefore I am reinserting that passage. I do not even understand your other argument. All the wording is saying is that it is not inherantly antisemitic, but sometimes it can be as it depends on the motivations of the speaker. I don't see how you could argue against this as it is not particularly controversial.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

What needs to be emphasized, unless someone is pusting a POV? It's just redundant. Currently, it just looks like someone with poor writing style created this article. I am invoking the three revert rule on this. Please do not revert again.

For the other edit.

The distinction between "is not" and "need not be". Please look at the two following sentences:

• "They neeed not be so rude"
• "They are not rude"

The first one clearly implies that THEY ARE RUDE, but don't have to be. Similarly, you are making the accusation that people who oppose Israeli apartheid are anti-semitic. Nlsanand 01:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all you obviously have no understanding of the 3RR rule as I have only reverted 2 times in the last 24 hours. Second of all, you are not making any sense, normal writing is filled with stylistic emphasis that may technically be redundant. I do not understand why you persist on such a small issue. The other issue makes even less sense. All the passage implies is that the criticism may be anti-semitic but is not inherantly anti-semitic.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I was saying don't change it again, or you will be and apparently have violated the rule. Make sense, now. Also, might I ask why you persist on such a small issue? Why do you care so much? At least I care with a valid reason. Nlsanand 22:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually even if this were still in that 24 hour period another edit would not be breaking the 3RR, you seem to have a tendency to not read things that you should before commenting on them (policies and sources for example). If you wish to see my reasons for favoring the version you merely need to scroll up. The fact is, you continually either imply or outright state that only your reasons make sense, when in fact they might make the least sense out of any argument on this talk page. If you would pick up a book and read it you may be surprised by the amount of similar "redundant mistakes" the author makes. In fact you may be outright shocked that so few people seem to conform with your idiosyncratic interpretation of the English language.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Nlsanand, have you actually read what the source says? SlimVirgin 15:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Does it matter? This is not a quote, why are we inisting on writing so poorly. It's a platitude, encyclopedias don't need platitudes. Your insistece upon this in spite of facts baffles me.

Also, I've amended the section to say "need not be deemed". I think it is a good compromise. Nlsanand 22:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be a really good idea to read a source before trying to summarize what it says; I'm baffled that you don't. Jayjg 22:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Look you guys are quite condescending for people who don't understand simple logic. It doesn't matter what the source says! By the way, I did read it before. The point I was making is my edit has not changed the meaning of anything, just eliminated redundant info. This is really dense. I am editing this again. Nlsanand 23:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, someone beat me to it. Nlsanand 23:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the whole sentence, about a single meeting in 2002, somewhat redundant and irrelevant? The argument is made quite thoroughly already. I'd suggest simply taking out the sentence, which is much weaker than the argument that precedes it. Mackan79 02:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

EUMC Definition

Ok, I'm a bit confused. The EUMC definition is titled "Working Definition on Antisemitism." How is this a definition of "New Antisemitism"? Very clearly, it says it's a definition of antisemitism, which then gives contemporary examples. In fact, the working definition itself is italicized: "Working Definition: Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physcial manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their prperty, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities." Please check it out, it doesn't call itself a definition of new or even contemporary antisemitism.

So, then, the document continues, after a set of general contemporary examples of antisemitism:

"Examples of the ways in which antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the state of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:

• Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination...
• Applying double standards...
• Using the symbols and images...
• Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
• Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic."

Can you also explain, then, why we're removing the final counter-example? The bulleted points are not offered as a definition, but as five examples, followed by one counterexample. The counter-example is directly applicable to the examples. How do you quote the document and simply cut that out? We discussed this above, and the only answer we got was that it's a straw man, but clearly that can't be a valid reason when the EUMC itself chose to include it. Any and all comments welcome. Mackan79 22:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, only the second part, if anything, has been discussed at all. In any case, can I ask what was your reason? Can you really say the EUMC was simply knocking down a straw man? Mackan79 23:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Mackan, for heaven's sake, you're doing here what you do everywhere else. The EU doesn't need to give a def of AS. It's new or contemporary AS that govts need a def of so they can monitor it, and that's what the EU offered. SlimVirgin 23:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Slim, if it's universally understood that new definitions are contemporary definitions, then it's universally understood. It's not something for us to throw in, especially when this article has just given a very particular definition of "New Antisemitism." Why is this even controversial? My main point was simply to clarify that it's not actually a definition, but examples that illustrate a definition, which is irrefutable. Mackan79 23:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. It's a definition. SlimVirgin 23:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Look at it again. The definition is given in italics at the top of the page. What follows are various examples and illustrations. It is not "defining" these incidences as antisemitism. The statement I put is obviously more accurate; can I ask why you don't like it? Mackan79 01:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Slim, re this: "The EU doesn't need to give a def of AS. It's new or contemporary AS that govts need a def of so they can monitor it, and that's what the EU offered." You are simply but very much so wrong. I quote: "The EUMC Report on Antisemitism published in March 2004 highlighted both the lack of operational definitions of antisemitism in most EU Member States and the insufficient data comparability due to the different methodologies used by primary data collectors." (my emphasis) This clearly states (without my needing to indulge in any interpretation or judgement to make it state) that what is lacking is precisely what you say the EU doesn't need to give. Are you suggesting, btw, that, for example, "Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or in the name of religion" is "new antisemitism"? I'm sorry to say that it is not, and it is just the first of several examples of antisemitism that have a long history. The "new" elements in the document we are discussing all concern the state of Israel (which your article omits to mention). Criticisms of the state of Israel will tend to be "new" for the obvious reason. Grace Note 03:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Slim, your reversion is unjustified, as per Mackan79's points. You've restored an edit that a) smuggles in OR by saying what the EUMC doesn't say, that their true topic is "new" antisemitism; b) falsely describes bullet-pointed examples as constituting a "definition," where in fact the EUMC actually supplies a definition and the examples aren't it; and c) violates NPOV by selectively deleting a key qualifying sentence.--G-Dett 23:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It says new or contemporary, G-Dett, which it undoubtedly is. That's what they're trying to describe, what some scholars and journalists are calling new antisemitism. What did you think they were trying to do? Read the previous footnote, and read the definition itself. For example, part of their definition of antisemitism is "using the symbols and images associated with classical antisemmitism ... to characterize Israel or Israelis" (which is part of the definition of new antisemitism as understood by everyone who writes about it). Why would they mention "classical antisemitism" if in fact that's all they're talking about? SlimVirgin

I thought they were trying to do what they said they were trying to do:

The purpose of this document is to provide a working guide for identifying incidents, collecting data, and supporting the implementation and enforcement of legislation dealing with antisemitism.

Antisemitism is a fact, a phenomenon. "New antisemitism" is a theory. It's a theory to which you subscribe, so you'd like to alter the wording of the EUMC document such that it looks they've explicitly endorsed the theory. But they haven't. Classic case of OR. Let it go.

They also explicitly provide a "definition," and it isn't the one you keep shoe-horning in:

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.

The set of non-exhaustive examples you keep falsely presenting as their "definition" of "new antisemitism" actually constitutes a subsection, way down the page, explicitly about how "antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the state of Israel." The subsection includes several qualifying phrases ("taking into account the overall context"; "However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic") which, unsurprisingly, you keep deleting. It takes considerable nerve to insist that other editors must clear it with you on the talk page if they wish to correct incontestibly false information in the article.

In short, you've offered a wholly unsatisfactory answer to my point a) above, and no answer at all to points b) and c).--G-Dett 00:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Antisemitism is as much a concept as "New antisemitism"; they are both ways of describing specific phenomena directed at Jews. Your distinctions are entirely artificial. You happen to subscribe to a particular political narrative in which the former is "fact", and the latter is "theory", but that's just sophistry, not reality. Jayjg 00:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

If you want to say antisemitism is merely a concept, fine. I don't agree, but I'll accept the premise. If it's a concept, it's still a concept distinct from the theory of "New Antisemitism." The EUMC document supplies a definition of the former, which you keep altering so that it looks like an endorsement of the latter.--G-Dett 01:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

We now have Michael Whine's expert view of the definition, rather than the personal views of some editors on this page. SlimVirgin 01:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

In fact, Whine describes it as a "common definition of antisemitism" and says the "initiative" (not the definition) recognises "the new directions from which anti-Semitism comes". So you have allowed yourself to reinterpret the source (which does not say what you claim at all), which is from what cannot in any way be described as an unbiased organisation, and seems to be an issue brief on a website. (Was it ever published? How widely was it disseminated?) Even if it were allowed that this source is reputable, you simply footnote the document, do not quote it and do not claim to be sourcing any part of the views in the article to Whine. Grace Note 04:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Concept versus term

Some editors here are engaged in WP:POINT. This isn't an article about the term, but about the idea, and there has been a long-standing agreement on this page that sources don't have to use the exact phrase "new antisemitism" to be included. It only has to be clear that they are talking about that idea, and in the case of the EU definition, it's abundantly clear by the examples they give and the language they use; indeed it's the rise of NAS in Europe that prompted the need for the EU's research and definition in the first place. Any editor here who pretends otherwise is either editing in bad faith, or hasn't read anything about the topic. SlimVirgin 00:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who does a brief Google search will find discussion of the EU definition in terms of new antisemitism, or new forms of antisemitism, or the new manifestation of antisemitism, and similar phrases. For example, Michael Whine of the Community Security Trust, who regularly briefs the British government and European Union on antisemitism: "Of the initiatives undertaken by European organizations in recent years to combat anti-Semitism, two appear likely to be more effective than others. They are the April 2004 Berlin Declaration of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the Working Definition of Anti-Semitism of the European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) ... Both initiatives depart from previous ones in two important respects. First, they provide for regular implementation monitoring ... Second, they both recognize the new directions from which anti-Semitism comes - particularly the demonization of Israel and Zionism, which all too frequently serves as a cover for Jew-hatred, and which overspills from the Arab world, is promoted by Islamists, and has been adopted by some leftist and left-liberal circles."

With secondary sources identifying it thus, it doesn't matter what some editors on this page are claiming. It's obvious from the primary source material that the EU definition and examples are about the concept of new antisemitism, and it is so described by secondary sources. SlimVirgin 00:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's arguing that sources "have to use the exact phrase 'new antisemitism' to be included" here. It's fine to use the EUMC definition; it's just not fine to alter their words so that they appear to be endorsing a theory you subscribe to.--G-Dett 00:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Good thing that hasn't been done. And it's certainly not o.k. to pretend the EUMC is not talking about New antisemitism. Jayjg 00:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean that hasn't been done? Have you read the above? And have you read the report?--G-Dett 00:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I mean it hasn't been done; the summary is faithful to the source. Jayjg 01:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Jay, it is not even arguably faithful to the source. The source says nothing about "new antisemitism," and it explicitly gives a definition of "antisemitism" which the current edit suppresses, instead shoe-horning in some examples from a subsection at the bottom of the page, which it misrepresents as the document's definition. The examples you've repackaged as the definition itself come from a subsection dealing with a subset of the topic at hand; these are introduced as "ways antisemitism could manifest itself with regard to Israel." "Ways that topic X can manifest itself" is perforce not the definition of topic X itself. The definition of AIDS is not weight loss and depression. The definition of poverty is not a lack of educational opportunities for one's children. The definition of racism is not being refused a deserved job promotion. This is elementary reading comprehension and verbal logic 101, Jay. Stop prevaricating.--G-Dett 04:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It's quite astonishing that you suggest that. No one who reads the source will be under any misapprehension that what you give is the definition, or that the EUMC suggests in any way that it's defining "new antisemitism". I do not know what to say about this, Jay, because I can't understand how you could rationally say what you're saying if you've actually read the working paper. Grace Note 04:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The secondary sources say they're defining new or contemporary antisemitism, and so that's what we will say. SlimVirgin 00:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

We're going to present the report's very mandate using not its own formulations, but those of secondary sources?

Do you also have some secondary sources to back up your misstatements about the paper's "definition"?

Can I expect a response or justification regarding the selective deletions and NPOV violations?--G-Dett 00:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The report is contrasting some recent sort of antisemitism with "classical antisemitism"; what do you imagine that to be? Old antisemitism? Jayjg 01:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

As a compromise in order to stop the reverting, I've restored the sentence about Israel, even though it's already part of the definition, which includes: "Applying double standards by requiring of Israel a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation," which is saying the same as: "criticism of Israel cannot be regarded as antisemitism so long as it is similar to that leveled against any other country." However, both sentences are there now. I also added a secondary source for the sentence saying it's a def of new or contemporary antisemitism. G-dett, we always use secondary sources if possible, rather than interpret primary ones. Please read the policies. SlimVirgin 01:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Slim, as you know very well, I haven't suggested that we "interpret" the primary source; I've suggested that we quote it accurately, rather than doctoring their words as you have done.--G-Dett 01:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I see you've now restored the misrepresentation. Why won't you quote the document accurately? Are we really going to go down the revert war/mediation/arbitration route over what is plainly a misrepresentation?--G-Dett 01:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Which bit is not being quoted accurately? SlimVirgin 01:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Read before posting, Slim.--G-Dett 03:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Instead of unhelpful sniping, could you just tell me? I don't know which bit you're referring to. SlimVirgin 04:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This is completely silly, though I don't have time to respond adequately at the moment. It's a definition of antisemitism, as it says; the statements of other sources are completely irrelevant unless we're going to say "This has been called a definition of New Antisemitism by this source." Simply attributing that to WP is blatantly false and ridiculous. As I said above, this isn't even a definition; it's examples from a definition. Perhaps the best method is to say that this other source called it a definition of New Antisemitism, but you can't simply misrepresent the original source as saying that itself. The original source says it's a definition of Antisemitism. Mackan79 01:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Mackan, do not start here what you do elsewhere. Read the policies, read the sources, read the article before editing it. The EU document is a definition. It is described as such everywhere. We have secondary sources calling it that and there are dozens of them. They say it is a definition of the new wave of antisemitism, new antisemitism, and words to that effect. We go with what authoritative secondary sources say where there's a disagreement over the meaning of a primary source. Read the policies, please. How many times do I have to say that? SlimVirgin 01:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Crimeny, Slim. I hate to say this, but I don't think you can pull the expertise card on this one. This is a simple question: can you take an illustrative example out of a paper devoted to defining a term, and call that example a "definition"? The obvious answer is no, you can't. An example already has a name: an example.

Beyond that, though, the paper itself couldn't be more clear. We have a heading, "Working Definition," followed by a colon, quotes, two sentences in italics, and ended by a quotation mark. It then proceeds to discuss and illustrate the definition for the rest of the page. It's just a little funny, really, because a couple of weeks ago, Jayjg and you were obsesed with the significance of a missing bullet point, and now you want to ignore all of a heading, italics, and quotation marks?

Anyway, I have no interest in scoring points, which make me feel like a child. I really just don't see the problem here. So it's five examples provided by the EUMC: what does it hurt to say this? Does it somehow undermine the examples to call them what they are? You could certainly say, if you wanted, that many groups have considered this a definition on New Antisemitism. Is that not the proper way to deal with the situation? Mackan79 08:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's what is "completely silly", Mackan; the EUMC comes up with a definition of some sort of antisemitism, which includes the ideas that

• Denying the Jewish people the right to self-determination, e.g. by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavor,
• Applying double standards by requiring of Israel a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation, and
• Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis

are a kind of antisemitism. Now, if it's not New antisemitism, then exactly what antisemitism are they describing? Racial antisemitism? Religious antisemitism? And, on top of that, reliable secondary sources explicitly tell us that it's New antisemitism that the EUMC is talking about. I can only assume that some of the arguments to the contrary are being made purely in jest; the alternatives are too horrible to contemplate. Jayjg 01:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

These points are "examples oft the ways in which antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the state of Israel". Please review WP:RTS (read the sources). pertn 09:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

They're discussing antisemitism. What you're ignoring, of course, is that before even getting to the part about Israel, they have a whole host of examples having nothing to do with it. In that regard, here's what you can say: "In their recent working definition of antisemitism, the EUMC acknowledged the fundamental preceps of New Antisemitism to be an important part of contemporary antisemitism." Because that, indeed, is what they basically did. What they didn't do was define "New Antisemitism." I'm really not trying to whitewash the page here; I'm simply trying to make it accurate. See comment to Slim below. Mackan79 08:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. What is it if not the concept of new antisemitism? Are people here suggesting Mackan79 knows more about antisemitism than Michael Whine of the Community Security Trust? SlimVirgin 01:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

What am I missing here? The Whine article calls it a working definition of Antisemitism. He also says it acknowledges antisemitism has changed in form. You're suggesting that makes it a definition of new antisemitism? Perhaps we're simply talking past each other. If we're talking about a definition of music, which incorporates elements from the 20th century not previously considered "music," that doesn't make it a definition of 20th century music, does it? It's a definition of music, updated and expanded for the 20th century. Neither is it a "definition of contemporary music." That's all I'm saying here...Mackan79 08:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on how it presented in the article (haven't looked at it yet) but i did just read the source. I think see where the problem is. See here:

• Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis..

It's "new" by virtue of not being "classic". They've prefixed the "old", rather than the "new". <<-armon->> 10:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added in "Some contemporary examples included, but were not limited to:" before the bulleted examples in the article -does this address your concerns, Mackan? <<-armon->> 10:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps immensely in terms of accuracy. In terms of clarity, the only thing is that these still are examples of the interaction between antisemitism and Israel-opposition, which is specifically why it's relevant to this article. I'd think we would all want to clarify that much, because it's the whole basis for inclusion. I simply think some are going too far by suggesting this is actually a definition of contemporary antisemitism, which means something totally different, like calling a modern definition of music a definition of modern music. They're two very different things. Mackan79 14:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

One more thing: along with others, I think you may have overlooked the division in the examples. The first large group is a set of general examples of antisemitism in public life. This, incidentally, is what makes it very clear it's a general definition. The second group, though, which we quote, is indeed specifically about interaction between Israel and antisemitism, as G-Dett quoted.Mackan79 14:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why anyone would contribute any further to this discussion when not agreeing with Slim/Jay is characterised as "editing in bad faith" but I direct Slim and Jay to WP:NOR. The EUMC definition states clearly what it defines. If you guys had the slightest regard for the policies you brandish like weapons, you would reword your statement to make it clear that the examples given by the EUMC are so characterised by commentators, not by the EUMC. The EUMC even states that it supplied the definition because operational definitions of antisemitism lack. It does not state that it needed a new definition for a new kind of antisemitism.

The EUMC does say this elsewhere. In its 2006 working paper, it says something like (writing from memory) — Some commentators have posited that there is a "new antisemitism," characterized as vilification of Jews as a collective and mainly perpetrated by Muslims. While studies do not show that there has been any fundamental change in the expression of antisemitic stereotypes, there has been a fundamental change in the way Jews are represented in politics and the media."

The problem on this page is that several editors want to express strong views, but don't want to get their heads down and do the dull reading. I accept that it's boring, but there's no shortcut. The fact of the matter is that the EU does accept there is a new form of antisemitism, no matter what it might be called, as does almost every serious scholar of the subject. Even those opposed to NAS such as Brian Klug accept that there is a new bigotry against Jews — his "brand new bug," as he calls it — he just doesn't want to call it antisemitism, because he feels it's a radical departure rather than a continuation. But he agrees that it's new, that it's vile, and that it's dangerous. There really is no one sensible and knowledgable who disagrees with that. SlimVirgin 04:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

But you didn't quote the passage you can't quite remember. You instead mischaracterise something as a "definition" of the concept that far from being agreed upon by everyone "sensible and knowledgeable" is very controversial. Grace Note 04:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, what you quote as the definition is not. They are examples given by the EUMC of antisemitism, which you have cherrypicked (ignoring the other examples of antisemitism that are given supra, which do not fit your definition so well, because they do not regard the state of Israel).

I note also that I entirely deplore the suggestion that Jay makes that anyone who argues contrary to his (extremely poor) argument is antisemitic (the irony that this is precisely the counterargument to the epithet we are describing should not escape us). Jay, you are smart enough to see that the definition given by the EUMC does not include the examples of antisemitism, as your text misleadingly suggests, but that they are given as examples to guide the work of researchers. Other examples are given. The EUMC in no way defines "new antisemitism", in no way characterises what it defines as that, and in no way suggests that what it describes is divisible. It's interesting that you cherrypicked the list of examples it gives of antisemitism directed towards the Israeli state, which cannot but be "new", on account of the Israeli state's not existing until recently. (Curiously, again, this is precisely the argument of the left in this area: that there is only a "new antisemitism" because pro-Israel commentators have started labelling any criticism of Israel as "antisemitic".) Now you and I might rehearse that argument here, Jay, but I think you can (but of course won't) agree that we should not be trying to synthesise it in the text. Grace Note 03:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

If we have to go to mediation and/or arbitration, then let's get on with it. Slim, your last question to me – "Which bit is not being quoted accurately?" – smacks of bad faith. I do not see the merest glimmering of a sincere attempt to engage with – or even acknowledge – the objections meticulously raised here. The current edit is flat-out false, and appears to be a deliberate doctoring and misrepresentation of source material.--G-Dett 03:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you really enjoy this time wasting? I don't know which part you feel has not been quoted accurately, so just tell me. SlimVirgin 04:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I gave a long discussion of how the definition is misrepresented. I'm sorry to say I agree with G-Dett. I objected in detail, carefully, and you ignore that and repeat the question. Well, all I can do is repeat the answer. It's in my post of 03:30, 30 Jan 2007 UTC. Grace Note 04:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Read what I've written, Slim, and stop prevaricating.--G-Dett 04:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The British All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Anti-Semitism in the UK

The following paragraph in this section needs serious work:

The inquiry adopted the view of racism expressed by the MacPherson report after the murder of Stephen Lawrence, namely that a racist act is defined by its victim, and that it is the Jewish community that is in the best position to determine what is anti-Semitic. The report states that left-wing activists and Muslim extremists are using criticism of Israel as a "pretext" for anti-Semitism, and that the "most worrying discovery" is that anti-Semitism appears to be entering the mainstream. The inquiry calls for the adoption of a clearer definition of anti-Semitism that reflects its "complex and multi-faceted" nature. It argues that anti-Zionism may become anti-Semitic when it adopts a view of Zionism as a "global force of unlimited power and malevolence throughout history," a definition that "bears no relation to the understanding that most Jews have of the concept: that is, a movement of Jewish national liberation ..." Having re-defined Zionism, traditional anti-Semitic motifs of Jewish "conspiratorial power, manipulation and subversion" are transferred from Jews onto Zionism. This is "at the core of the 'New Anti-Semitism'," the report concludes, adding that many of those who gave evidence called anti-Zionism "the lingua franca of antisemitic movements."

First of all, it's heavily cherry-picked so as to look like an unqualified endorsement of the theory/concept of new antisemitism. All of the charged phrases floating around in this paragraph are qualified in their context, and the report explicitly says that "it is not the role of this inquiry to take sides in this major debate," i.e. the debate about NAS and the relationship between anger about Israeli policies and antisemitism (point 81). The sentence that reads "This is 'at the core of the "New Anti-Semitism,"' the report concludes, adding that many of those who gave evidence called anti-Zionism 'the lingua franca of antisemitic movements'" contains much that is misleading as well as one outright falsehood. This is not how the report "concludes"; rather, it is a digressive side-example 24 pages into a 66-page report (point 83, beginning "For example, criticism of Israel is not in itself antisemitic..."). The sentence saying "This is at the core of the 'New Anti-Semitism'" actually reads "This is at the core of the 'New Anti-Semitism,' on which so much has been written." The sentence, in other words, is tangentially gesturing to an external body of work about one facet of the topic at hand (a facet the report endorses only with cautious qualifications, acknowledging it to be controversial, and trying to stay aloof of the controversy by positing a difference between antisemitic intentions and antisemitic effects). This cautious side note in the middle of the report has been edited by someone here so as to appear to be the concluding moment, where the report sums up its own findings. I'll leave it to veterans of this page to fix it, but if it doesn't happen I'll do it.--G-Dett 00:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett, it seems to me that the report does indeed conclude that there is an overlap between anti-Zionism and antisemitism, but does not want to get into the discussion on the use of a particular term. There is, however, a recognition of the concept - a rose by any other name - etc. As for "criticism against Israel is not necessarily antisemitism," this is a strawman argument, which has been pointed out many many times. Nobody - to my knowledge - equates criticism of Israel with antisemitism. It looks to me like you are the one who wants to qualify the conclusions at the expense of the clarity the report is striving for. --Leifern 18:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I want us to a) quote the report accurately and not tendentiously; b) balance the cherry-picked phrases with one iteration of the report's many careful qualifications; and c) rephrase one incredibly misleading sentence – not by offering an alternative paraphrase, but by citing the actual language of the report itself.

That sentence now reads: "This is 'at the core of the "New Anti-Semitism,"' the report concludes, adding that many of those who gave evidence called anti-Zionism 'the lingua franca of antisemitic movements'" As I've explained, 66-page report does not conclude on page 24, in a digressive numbered point beginning "For example, criticism of Zionism is not in itself antisemitic," which is where these phrases have been picked and prised from. This opening caveat is indeed itself one of the many such qualifications selectively suppressed in the current edit. Moreover, the actual sentence that's been selectively sampled goes like this: "This is at the core of the 'New Anti-Semitism,' on which so much has been written." The current edit deletes the last seven words, thereby making it look like the report is announcing its own findings about its own central subject, which it is not doing, rather than gesturing to an external body of work, which is what it is doing. This false implication is compounded by the misleading statement that this is how the report "concludes," when it fact it is merely presenting a digressive observation one-third of the way into its findings.

My revision goes like this: This is "at the core of the 'New Anti-Semitism', on which so much has been written," the report remarks in one of its numbered points, adding that many of those who gave evidence called anti-Zionism "the lingua franca of antisemitic movements." The report underscores that "it is not the role of this inquiry to take sides in this major debate." It is a modest revision, which I've justified at great length on this page, a full day before adding it. Jay has since reverted it without any explanation, either here or in his edit summary. I think this is clearly unacceptable, and I've just filed an RfC on the matter.--G-Dett 18:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Mackan79, your reworded edit looks fine. Hopefully you've headed off an unnecessary revert war.--G-Dett 20:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, for starters, the citation was incorrect. The relevant quote is on p. 24. Secondly, the inquiry makes it clear that it doesn't want to take sides on the semantic issue but emphasizes the point that is made repeatedly by those who characterize New Antisemitism, namely that while criticism of Israel is not antisemitic per se, "however, in some quarters an antisemitic discourse has developed that is in effect antisemitic because it views Zionism itself as a global force of unlimited power and malevolence throughout history." Setting aside the issue that there is no major debate except between Ken Livingstone and his own strawman argument, the inquiry certainly agrees that antisemitism and anti-Zionism are not necessarily different things, as demonstrated by antisemitic events. G-Dett, you keep accusing others of obfuscating the meaning, but as far as I can tell, this is precisely what you're trying to do. --Leifern 20:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Leifern, please. My edit (which was reverted) left in place all of the points you reiterate above, every last quote. It merely added to them one example of the many cautious rhetorical qualifications made by the report. The report is carefully written; it doesn't traffic in weasel phrases like "antisemitism and anti-Zionism are not necessarily different things." Indeed it carefully specifies, at the outset of the very bullet-point cherry-picked by the contentious edit, that "criticism of Zionism is not in itself antisemitic." I'm not even trying to quote that one. The only qualifying phrase I've suggested is the one where it explicitly states that "it is not the role of this inquiry to take sides in this major debate" – where the clear reference (pace Armon) is the major debate about a relationship between anger at Israel and antisemitism.

So don't accuse me of obfuscating. I've left everything in. The relevant questions here are:

1. Why are you determined to alter the rhetorical tenor of the report, and suppress every qualifying phrase it was careful to include?

2. Why are you determined to present a single phrase from a single bullet-point in a subsection (pt.#83 in subsection 4, "Antisemitic discourse") as if it represented how the report "concludes"? What's wrong with saying "states in one of its numbered points"? or even simply, "states"?

3. And why do you insist on further truncating that phrase, so that a reference to a topic covered by an external body of work ("the 'New Anti-Semitism', on which so much has been written") appears instead to be a culminating judgment about the report's central subject?--G-Dett 21:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Leifern, the clause you've just added looks fine to me. Indeed, it's an important point, one the report comes back to in various ways when trying to explain its mandate. --G-Dett 21:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit War

I see that Humussapiens has restored the propaganda edit. I must say I'm accustomed to special pleading, double standards, and aggressive wikilawyering from these editors; what seems new however is the persistent shoe-horning in of bad-faith misrepresentations. Enough of the nonsense; let's go straight to mediation.--G-Dett 05:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Humus, the "silly rv game" is yours and yours only. What you've just reverted was new material I added – not a revert of your last ridiculous edit. The latter I'm leaving for mediation, having given up on the expectation of serious and good-faith discussion.--G-Dett 06:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you add a couple more times "propaganda edit" and "ridiculous edit" for good-faith discussion? ←Humus sapiens 06:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Forget it Humus, it's calculated prevarication, not heated rhetoric, which is relatively new to this page and which is destroying the atmosphere of good faith.--G-Dett 06:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Progress on EUMC working definition

Armon, I appreciate your good work in this section, rescuing what had become a bad situation indeed. I don't understand your latest edit however, and I think there might be a misunderstanding. Your edit summary says "rv OK how about WP:V? in any case the burden of proof is on removal -G-Dett check source it's "Contemp exmpls of AS in public life, media, schools, workplace, and and in the religious sphere". Have another look at the document in question. First of all, you'll find there are two subsections of examples. The first of these has the heading you quote in your edit summary, but this is not the section we quote from in our article; none of the examples we've entered into the article come from this subsection. They come from the second subsection, which is headed "Examples of the ways in which antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the state of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:" and then it goes on to list the examples we do quote in our article. This is the framing language for the relevant section we quote in full in our article; that's why I sampled it in the edit you've now removed. Which brings me to the second apparent misunderstanding. You say "the burden of proof is on removal," but it's you who's doing the removing, no? Please consider self-reverting.--G-Dett 15:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I went to bed but I take your point re: the bullet points which were quoted. As for the "removal point" - the edit summary was admittedly a mess. What I was talking about the commenting out of the "history" section. I'm sure you agree that if we're going to remove a big chunk of cited text, the burden of proof is on those who wish to remove it. <<-armon->> 22:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh I see. All clear now.--G-Dett 23:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing manipulation and distortion of source material

Jay, why have you restored an edit that has been shown to be factually false on one count and misleading on another? And why do you not see fit to account for your edit on the talk page? Especially given that the material you've just deleted was prefaced by a lengthy explanation on this page, posted some twelve hours before making the needed edit? Is this arrogance on your part or an oversight?--G-Dett 17:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I've submitted an RfC on this.--G-Dett 18:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I tried a compromise, though I don't know if it's any good. In any case, I looked through the report, and entirely share your concerns. My immediate question is, why does our summary not reflect any of the care taken in the report itself to present an even-handed discussion? Starting with Anti-Zionism, the first thing the report says is "One of the most difficult and contentious issues about which we have received evidence is the dividing line between antisemitism and criticism of Israel and Zionism." The report even says that "most of those who gave evidence were at pains to explain that criticism of Israel is not to be regarded in itself as antisemitic." So why does our article act like the report only supported this theory? I think the edit you suggested, with minor alteration or not, is really the least we could possibly do to even up this section. Mackan79 20:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

As we are all agreed on the need to reflect the actual statements in this report and to avoid as far as we possibly can introducing our own various biases, then the best solution must be to quote this report at greater length, and to use its own words rather than summarising. Mackan, do you want to add, for example, the sentences that you quote in your contribution above?Itsmejudith 21:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I honestly don't have time at the moment. At least one thing that needs clarification, though: "The report states that left-wing activists and Muslim extremists are using criticism of Israel as a "pretext" for anti-Semitism, and that the "most worrying discovery" is that anti-Semitism appears to be entering the mainstream. " As far as I can tell, the second half there isn't actually from the report, but a statement from the chairman, which wasn't connected to the previous thought. Also, the lingua franca statement is one of many pieces of testimony going both ways, which gives an inaccurate picture of the report. Anyway, I'm not pushing for dramatic changes here, but a couple minor changes, I think, could really even it up. I'll look at it more later, if someone doesn't first... Mackan79 22:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Slim, the changes were not only to improve the writing, but to make inaccurate statements accurate. The past/present tense issues were already there, I simply didn't fix it. In any case, you reinserted several inaccuracies:

• The report does not adopt the view that a racist act is defined by its victim, but considers it. It adopts the view that the Jewish community is in the best position to determine what is antisemitic. Saying the victim defines it is substantially stronger, and they specifically only said they considered that view. I made a small change to fix this.
• The report is very careful to say that the pretext is used "in some quarters" or "by some." Thus, I included the same qualification here. Why would we remove it?
• The quote about antisemitism entering the mainstream is missourced. It's not in that document, and in fact it appears to have been said by the Chairman, not the report. The statement is quoted at the bottom of the section to its correct source, where it belongs.

Beyond that, the section is simply poorly written, failing to present any sort of coherent line of thought. It's talking about who defines racism, then completely drops that and talks about anti-zionism. Then it jumps to a general statement on rising antisemitism, then back to an example of anti-Zionism as antisemitism, etc. What's the topic of this paragraph? "Tidbits from the committee that seem relevant"? You must see this paragraph does a poor job of explaining its line of thought, in addition to presenting only tidbits from one side. Can we not fix this?

Anyway, the main point is the inaccuracies. Did you check that out? Mackan79 18:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a while since I read the whole report, but I recall that it says it was adopting the Lawrence inquiry definition (are you familiar with that, and why it says that?). Ok, I see from your second sentence above that you accept what it says, so I suspect you don't know the Lawrence background. I don't have time right now to explain.

Please don't WP:POINT. What the chair says is what the committee endorsed.

Did you read the whole report and all the press statements from the chair explaining it? You do need to read it all before editing. SlimVirgin 19:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Slim, I read the report before editing on it. Incidentally, I'm somewhat surprised you admit to reverting my corrections based on distant recollections, and then try to instruct me on what I should do. Do you see why this would be unwelcome? The statements are incorrect for the specific reasons I mentioned. The report states that they "take into account" the view that racism is defined by the victim, but does not say they endorse that statement. It says the Jewish community is in the best position to determine what is antisemitic. Subtle differences are the whole objective of a report like this; should we not recognize them, unless there is a reason not to? As to the chairman, I hardly know what to say. 1. The footnoted source doesn't say that. 2. Our text says the report says it, but the report doesn't say it. 3. A chairman is not a committee. Basically, this isn't even a POV issue, it's simply an issue of citing the correct source. At the bottom of the section, the correct source is cited for this statement. Why on earth would we cite it a second time incorrectly to the wrong source? Mackan79 19:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You answered a question I didn't ask. Did you read the report and all the press statements from the chair that accompanied it? When these reports are published, the big problem is that journalists need to write about it that day for same day broadcast or next day publication. It's impossible, and so what happens is that there are advance leaks of summaries, and the chair agrees to give interviews which summarize the views of the committee, and that makes the media's job easier. What the chair says will be agreed by the committee in advance. So you need to read the coverage in general so you get the flavor of what the committee wants you to understand from its report. Not just the report itself. SlimVirgin 19:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You also must understand the Stephen Lawrence background and the conclusions of the MacPherson report. That strongly informed the way this issue was handled by the committee. SlimVirgin 19:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I somehow missed this. With respect for the recent civility, a few thoughts: 1. I read the press reports in search of where that statement came from, and eventually I found it, as correctly cited at the bottom of the section. 2. I don't dispute your general comments, and these are things I know. Nevertheless, you still can't cite a chairman's statements to the committee, and especially from the report. It comes from the chairman, which is significant, but people who care about sources know that. 3. Re: Lawrence, you seem to think I made some broad statement when I didn't. I simply stated, very narrowly, that the attribution is incorrect. If you have some broader point that changes the analysis, do tell, but I actually think you're simply misconstruing my point, which is very minor, and relates to whether "adopted" is the correct word for what they did with the statement that "a racist act is defined by its victim." If you look, you'll see they did not adopt that statement. It may be a subtle difference (not that subtle), but the report makes it very clearly, saying it "take into account" one statement and adopts another. Thus, I simply made it accurate. Mackan79 21:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

No, they're saying clearly that the Jewish community (or individual victim) is to be the judge of who's being antisemitic, just as the black community (or individual victim) is to be the judge of who's being racist, and that this is the standard they will adopt, take into account, whatever you want to call it, following MacPherson, which was a radical decision at the time — namely that these acts are to be judged by their consequences and not by their intent. Please don't split hairs. SlimVirgin 22:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Respecfully, it's much more than a hair. The difference is whether anyone other the Jewish community has any say whatsoever in whether something is antisemitic. "Defines" is a very strong word. Even so, splitting hairs is of course a problem if it's used to manufacture radical conclusions, but it's hardly a concern when you're talking about accurately attributing a statement. Statements from committees, as you surely know, are very carefully crafted. Need we not respect that? Particularly when the accuracy comes at no apparent cost, I really think we do. Mackan79 23:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Boring?

I would just like it to be noted that neither the parliamentary enquiry report nor the EU documents are boring as someone said above. Even picking them over line by line and discussing on this page what they mean and how they should be cited is not boring. But it is incredibly time-consuming. How many words have been added to this page today?Itsmejudith 21:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

And it's emotionally draining.Itsmejudith 21:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that people are reading outlines without understanding the background; without having done any of the academic reading (including carefully and respectfully reading stuff they strongly disagree with); without having knowledge of the MacPherson report, which informed the background to the UK inquiry; and then in addition having strong views that they want to insert into the article today. I started reading about NAS maybe 18 months ago; I've been steadily making my way through the material and I'm nowhere near having read enough (and more is being written every day). It's very frustrating to me to be doing that and have others turn up to edit war having read next to nothing. A lot of the certainty and pomposity on this page (that comment not directed at you, itsmejudith) comes from people not knowing much. Just a tiny bit of humility would therefore be welcome.

Some AGF would be welcome too. People have put a lot of work into this article, and almost all the anti-NAS material has been written by editors who broadly agree with the NAS thesis. That is, there has been a lot of writing for enemy, but not on the anti-NAS side, which always only writes from its own perspective.

There isn't a single sentence that has been "deliberately distorted" by the regular editors of this page. So I'd appeal to people who are making those accusations to consider whether, instead of deliberation distortions, it's (a) that they have made a mistake, or (b) that those they accuse have made a mistake, or (c) that there's a genuine good-faith disagreement about how best to present the issues. SlimVirgin 19:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm very much proceding on the assumption that you've made mistakes, but you insult me with virtually every single comment you leave me in any case. If you think there should be more respect here, could you not stop doing this? Reading background is of course helpful, but you don't have to be an expert on an issue to see whether a source was accurately quoted. If for some reason you did, then the expert should explain this, not tell people to go off and do their homework. That's a ridiculous comment, unless you very specifically know and can explain why a person is making suggestions that are completely off the wall. I really wish you could appreciate this, which would raise the level of respect on these talk pages immensely. Mackan79 19:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to discuss this issue with you before, but I seem to get nowhere. Do you accept that it would be better if editors were to read about new antisemitism before writing about it? Yes or no? SlimVirgin 19:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You know I've read about the subject, and you should know I've shown my willingness to compromise on many occasions. In any case, if someone sees clear mistake, I think they absolutely should correct it, and in fact I believe there's a WP policy in this regard. I have no idea how this justifies disrespectful behavior. Mackan79 20:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that you've read about the subject. Everything you write indicates that you haven't. Instead, you spend your time posting long comments to talk and expecting people to explain the background to you instead of reading it for yourself. Not just here, but elsewhere too, and it's really too much, as I've explained before. The time would be infinitely better spent reading up on the subject, then there would be fewer misunderstandings and a ton less frustration. SlimVirgin 20:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Slim, please simply know that if you continue with these unexplained personal attacks, I'll have no choice but to file an RfC. I don't want to bicker with you, because I think it's the biggest waste of time in the world, and I respect your point of view. But I don't think you're allowed to edit like this, and I'm not ok with the constant barrage of insults. Some people here may be ok with trading insults with you, but I'm not one of them. I have no interest in this style of editing. I'm here because I'd like to improve the accuracy and neutrality of WP, and because I find these topics fascinating, and because I enjoy working with the other editors on WP. That's it. I'm not here to be insulted.

I'll say this again, simply to be entirely clear: If I say something that is blatantly ignorant, you are completely entitled to point out why my comment is incorrect. You're not entitled to tell me repeatedly on multiple talk pages to read more on the subject in lieu of an explanation for why you just reverted my edit. Is that not incivil? Does it not violate the spirit of WP? Please note that I am strongly disagreeing with you, but I am in no way personally attacking you. If you could do this in response, I would really very much appreciate it. Mackan79 22:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't take it personally, Mackan. I've following the events on this page long enough to know that SlimVirgin *almost always* responds to criticism by suggesting that her opponents know nothing about the concept of "new antisemitism". The act is wearing extremely thin. CJCurrie 00:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks CJ. I don't take it that personally, although to some extent I do. Equally importantly, though, I think this hostile environment damages WP, by intimidating reasonable people from making or standing by suggestions. Otherwise, I'd be happy to sing my own praises, or join the melee, as the case required... Mackan79 05:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the problem is with Slim who has proven to be knowledgeable and reasonable editor, but with users who tend to swarm around this and many other related articles, mostly ignorant of the subject and history but ready to push their preset political POV. ←Humus sapiens 00:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

CJCurrie, you arrived at this page a long time ago talking about Finkelstein's views, admiring him, I think. Yet I was the one who had to write the Finkelstein section because you said you couldn't find the book or something. You did eventually add some stuff to it, but only after being badgered and directly asked to. What you've mostly done here is try to make life unpleasant with constant reverting, snide remarks, and bickering, but without much actual input. That's the act that's wearing extremely thin. SlimVirgin 00:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, (i) I wasn't the one who first mentioned Finkelstein on this page, and (ii) virtually every time I have mentioned him, I've clarified that I don't endorse his views in toto. But more to the point, I find it rather odd that you'd raise this particular example, given that I've had to correct your version of the Finkelstein section more than once. CJCurrie 00:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Slim, I don't understand your argument. Nobody said you're not well-read on New Antisemitism. Nobody said you don't belong here. If you want, I'll acknowledge your superior scholarship on the issue all day long. As you now seem to admit, however, even well-read people make mistakes, particularly when they have a strong point of view on the topic, which I think you'll admit to having. If I wrote the article, I'd probably have made many more mistakes than you did. But then, I wouldn't call someone ignorant when they came and pointed them out. Or at least I'd try hard not to... Mackan79 05:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a response to Slim's comment above of 19:19 UTC, 31 January. (Getting muddled about who said what on the talk page to whom and when is one of the things I find most wearing on this page.) Slim, I took my time going through the All-Party Inquiry report. I had to be sure I understood its status in relation to a) its own terms of reference, b) the "out there" NAS debate as far as I understand that debate, c) that debate as discussed in this article's mainspace, d) the arguments presented on this talk page. Now I think I understand all that. I've read some of the other background stuff, e.g. the Mcpherson report, and I frequently read policy documents and debates in the UK and EU so I know the policy context like the back of my hand. However I haven't read everything about the history of antisemitism in every historical period. I come to this as an amateur encylopedia editor, just like everyone else editing this page.

Now how can I proceed about trying to improve the way the Inquiry report is presented here? If I make changes in mainspace, will Jay revert me with nought but a No-Way-José edit summary? Shall I present everything here first? Should I set up a sandbox? Perhaps I feel a Be Bold moment coming on .... Itsmejudith 13:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the section needs a revision, as I attempted to do to some small degree. . I see a number of problems: 1. Most simply, the section has two misattributions which I pointed out. 2. The section fails to reflect the qualifications and care the inquiry took to present an evenhanded examination. 3. The section jumps around, failing to follow a clear line of thought, and fails to connect the information or to clarify its perceived relevance. These are what I tried to modestly fix. Incidentally, I'm not sure how much SV actually disagreed with my changes, or simply didn't see what I was trying to do. I'd welcome your effort, though, to offer another solution when the page is unlocked. If people object to changes, they can of course revert them, but ideally they'll do so carefully, and either with good explanations or better solutions. Mackan79 17:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:OWN?

Jay, would you mind deigning to explain and/or justify your plans to revert work that has been accompanied by lengthy, detailed, and cogent presentations of rationale on this page? Some modicum of respect for the work of others seems in order. Is it your intention to simply issue occasional peremptory, unresponsive, gnomic assertions here while engaging in ceaseless revert wars on the article page?--G-Dett 02:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett, perhaps you can first explain what you imagine you will gain from various personal attacks, double-standards, calling editors liars, etc.? One wonders in particular why you would accuse me in particular of WP:OWN, when at least 8 different editors have reverted each other on this article recently? Jayjg 02:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know of any other editor here who is doing major reversions without any attempt to engage or answer to those who have done the legwork. As to your first question, Jay, I note that you aren't any longer pursuing last night's revert war. I'd rather build on that positive development than revisit any ugliness. If you have wish to discuss the matter further, I'm willing, but let's do it on our own talk pages.--G-Dett 03:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, your description doesn't match me either, as I've been fully engaged on the Talk: page. Perhaps you meant User:Liftarn, who has managed to make a few reverts, and wikistalk/revert to other pages, all without commenting in Talk: at all. Jayjg 20:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, G-Dett, some insight, please. "Some modicum of respect for the work of others seems in order." Yes, indeed, but you're showing none. "Those who have done the legwork"? Not one of the editors who turned up here a few days ago to start an edit war has done any of the "legwork." Please look at the amount of work and research that has gone into this page and have some respect for it, even if you disagree with it. SlimVirgin 20:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Jayjg. Easy on the WP:PA. // Liftarn

Every time Slim's authority on these matters is questioned, she suggests that her opponents know nothing about the concept. The act is getting tiresome. CJCurrie 00:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Slim, I have indeed shown respect for the work and research that has gone into this page. That's precisely why, when I found flaws in that research in the form of misrepresented source material, I detailed – well in advance of editing – the nature of the flaw and what I proposed to do about it. When after a period I made my modest edit I found myself almost instantly reverted – the first time blindly by an editor who clearly hadn't read the material he was deleting, and subsequently by Jayjg – who wrote nothing on the talk page justifying his deletion, wouldn't respond to requests for justification either here or on his talk page, and in whose edit summary blithely remarked that he was "fixing" my edit, which he hadn't looked at closely enough to notice was about the British all-party parliamentary inquiry and not the EUMC definition.

If you're suggesting that new editors have to submit to having 'veterans' peremptorily toss their considered contributions into the trash can without so much as a flicker of mental recognition, then what you're suggesting is what I call owning.--G-Dett 17:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

"Responses" section

I am not really sure what the responses section is about. Is it a) about the responses to the "concept of NAS" (which SV claims the article is about) or is it b) about the responses to the phenomenon (actual or not) of NAS? pertn 08:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The section contains responses to the entire situation: the rise of antisemitism again, the struggle to understand and define it, the introduction of the concept of new antisemitism or a new form of antisemitism, or whatever it's named — that is, a rise in left-wing antisemitism, Islamic antisemitism, and far right antisemitism, accompanied by an apparent shared language between the three, which is the unique thing. What we're dealing with is the rise of a new zeitgeist, possibly a paradigm shift in the way Jews are viewed. The responses are an attempt on the part of governments and universities to understand it, and to fight and reverse it. These constant questions about "is it a phenomenon, or a concept, or a term?" miss the point. SlimVirgin 19:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we're dealing with the opinion of certain authors that a new "zeitgeist" is rising. There's nothing close to academic consensus, let alone popular consensus on these matters.

I've never objected to having a page that explores the idea of a "new antisemitism", and conveys the opinions of concept-proponents and concept-opponents. The problem is that certain editors seem intent on using the article page to *promote* the concept, notwithstanding Misplaced Pages regulations to the contrary.

For too long, this page has been a textbook example of Misplaced Pages's failure to police itself. We now seem to have reached an absurdist stage in this development, wherein "false, but reliable" material is deemed suitable for inclusion.

We need a restoration of sanity. CJCurrie 00:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to discuss the inclusion of Flannery, or the editing of that paragraph, if that's what you're referring to, but it can't be done the way you edit, CJ, and I'm surprised that after all this time of (as I see it) causing trouble on this page, you haven't realized that. Your usual thing is to remove something, without discussion, that another editor has put a fair bit of work into; announce in a very long post on talk that you're the only person in the world capable of understanding NPOV and that this ain't it; revert, revert, revert when someone tries to restore the text; then express astonishment on talk that someone dared to restore it before responding to your several-hundred-word long opinion.

On the very few occasions where you've actually discussed first, put forward reasonable suggestions, and treated other editors' work with respect, you've managed to insert or remove whatever you wanted, almost without argument. Perhaps you could try that again?

No one is trying to use this page to push any concept. What we're trying to do is to make sure you don't remove material just because you'd prefer the issue of left-wing antisemitism not to be explored too thoroughly. What I suggest is that both "sides" read the sources and try to transmit what they say, and just leave it at that. SlimVirgin 00:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

What we're trying to do is to make sure you don't remove material just because you'd prefer the issue of left-wing antisemitism not to be explored too thoroughly. Unfortunately, some editors appear to have started from the viewpoint that I was removing material for that reason, and ignored the substance of my arguments.

What I suggest is that both "sides" read the sources and try to transmit what they say, and just leave it at that. Are you willing to read the Szajkowski essay? CJCurrie 00:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course. I'm willing to read anything people suggest. SlimVirgin 00:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm half-tempted to call you out on this by suggesting an impossibly dense work like Finnegans Wake, Gravity's Rainbow or Glas. Instead, I'll simply request that you read Szajkowski's 1947 essay, and state whether or not you still believe Flannery's 1985 citation is valid. CJCurrie 00:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Please confirm that you want me to read "The Jewish Saint-Simonians and Socialist Antisemitism in France," Jewish Social Studies, January 1947. I will, though I have a real-world deadline tomorrow, so I can't go looking for it then, but I'll track it down as soon as I can. I take it your point is that the statement that "Szajkowski concluded that he couldn't find a single word on behalf of the Jews in the whole of ... literature from 1820 to 1920" is false. Are you saying Flannery made it up, or are you saying he misunderstood something that Szajkowski did say; and if the latter, what did Szajkowski say that you think Flannery misunderstood? SlimVirgin 01:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Taking this point-by-point: (i) Yes, I want you to read "The Jewish Saint-Simonians and Socialist Antisemitism in France," Jewish Social Studies, January 1947, (ii) the statement is, in fact, false, (iii) it appears to have been a misunderstanding, (iv) Szajkowski actually wrote the following: "In quoting only the antisemitic pronouncements of the French socialists, before Edouard Drumont, the writer may be suspected of having ignored the pro-Jewish sentiments. In order to ally any such suspicion, the writer wishes therefore to say explicitly that his efforts to find sympathetic references to Jews in the French socialist literature, from Saint-Simon to the date of Drumont's first appearance, have been futile" (p. 60); Drumont's first appearance in French socialist literature was in 1886.

I could add that (v) an error of this magnitude calls into question the reliability of the source, (vi) compounded with his Protocols howler and taking into account the fact that it was not published by a credible firm, I can only conclude that the source is unsuitable for our purposes, (vii) the material is in any event irrelevant to the article. CJCurrie 02:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. My lack of response doesn't mean I'm ignoring your post; I just need time to think about it, recheck Flannery, and think about the OR issue. SlimVirgin 13:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Break

Thanks for a good and serious answer. The problem wtih the whole article, as I see it, is illustrated by this section. You have claimed elsewhere that the article is about a concept, but clearly the Responses section does not contain the responses to NAS - The Concept. It contains a muddeled collection of "evidence" to its existence, responses to AS in general (presented as the sources are talking about NAS), examples of NAS, a definition, some random statistical data from the EUMC report, anecdotes, the disputed Flannery part and so on. Being so loosely defined, it allows for Cherry-picking of "evidence" and examples, and the section really ends up being a OR-piece "proving" or "analyzing" the status of this zeitgeist or shift in the ways jew are viewed you describe. I do not claim that everything is wrong, but I claim that the (lack of) structure of the section allows for POV editing. Clearly, this whole section must be rearranged. Do not view this as an attack of your authorship here. The state of the section is clearly a result of the many compromises.

PS: This is not so important, but.... If the section were really to contain responses to the concept NAS it think the article I posted some months ago by jenny bourne could be included for balance in the UK section. (you rejected it based on a basis that JB was no-notable, which probably was based on mistaken identity.). This is a response to the concept: She claims that it is a tool for a witch-hunt and for ad hominem-attacks on Israel-critics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pertn (talk • contribs) 09:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

Hi Pertn, I take your point and it's a fair one. First, regarding Bourne, the responses section is about responses by organizations (govts, quangos, universities).

The fact remains is that — whatever we call NAS, and whether we see it as a concept, phenomenon, whatever — there is a wave of something spreading around the world, especially Europe; it's similar to an old something but not exactly like it; and it's sufficiently serious and bewildering that governments have set up inquiries and issued reports. The academics invited to address these inquiries tend to be the people involved in the new antisemitism debate, and in the development of the concept: Robert Wistrich, Brian Klug, and Yehuda Bauer, for example, and non-academics like Michael Whine (even Brian Klug, who opposes the concept is helping to sharpen it with his arguments). In addition, at least one university, Yale, has set up a new center to study it, and although they don't include NAS in the name of the center, one of the academics said: "It's almost like going back into the lab. I think we need to understand the current manifestation of this disease." So they're saying there seems to be something different going on. Therefore, to argue that these responses aren't really responses to NAS, and that we're somehow pushing the concept by including that material, ignores all that evidence. I really don't see how we could leave it out. SlimVirgin 13:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think what you should more candidly acknowledge is that in the eyes of many, that "something" spreading is the sophistry that equates criticism of a modern state with historical oppression of a people. I think the uneasiness people have about the "responses" section is that its presentation seems to foreclose the vigorous debate people are having about the scope and very legitimacy of the concept; if someone's responding, then the phenomenon must exist – so goes the logic tacit and hidden in the article, and explicit in your last post. Imagine if there were a section in the "Allegations of Israeli Apartheid" article called "Responses," that listed the World Court decision about the wall, various UN resolutions, the findings of various human rights organizations and so on. It would load the dice a little, wouldn't it?

I think the section should be called, "Statements by Governments, Universities, and Other Organizations."--G-Dett 16:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind changing the header, though I'm not keen on that long one, or "statements" because setting up an inquiry is an action, not a statement. We could simply say "actions by governments and groups." SlimVirgin 16:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough Slim. How about "Official Inquiries and Findings"? Sounds pretty solid, right? I hope it's clear I'm not trying to throw scare-quotes up around the section. I just think "Responses" forecloses discussion about the nature of the thing; it sounds like a mobilization in response to a phenomenon the scope and definition of which are a matter of consensus.--G-Dett 17:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

If you review the section i light of what you just wrote, you will see several examples that do not fit into your description of the intent of the section. For instance: the section quotes (quite selectively) findings of antisemitic attacks in Europe. And it quotes the definition of antisemitism with regards to israel. And then you've got one quote here and one quote here and it is not really clear why they are placed there. It also seems that your intent with the section is coloured by your POV. Hence, I must restate my claim that this section needs a change. I have a feeling you agree. I am not sure if that means that any of the material needs to be removed or that you have to "leave out" the material or what you call the "evidence" that there is a wave of something new, but it has to be placed in a more rigid and transparent structure.

(By the way, since you are expressing your POV about NAS here, I could mention mine. I also think that there might be changes in the distribution and forms of antisemitism, and I am certain that that has to do with Israel. But I do not see much evidence of antisemitism on the European left, and I am a proponent of free speech do not at all like to the attempts of labeling political statements about Israel as antisemitic. In most of the instances I have seen NAS used it is to make ad hominem attacks against serious Israel-critics, and not agains people with prejudice towards jews.) pertn 09:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Pertn above, especially regarding the need for a "more rigid and transparent structure" for the "Responses" section. I reiterate my suggestion that we rename the section to something like, "Statements by Governments, Universities, and Other Organizations," and limit its content accordingly.--G-Dett 14:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Pertn, can you give me an example of the NAS allegation being made as an ad hominem against a "serious Israel critic," rather than against someone who is prejudiced against Jews?

The NAS allegation is made against people and groups who make Jews feel they're being attacked qua Jews by people who claim to be no more than opponents of some Israeli government policies. Here are some examples of Jews reporting that they feel attacked qua Jews. If our article isn't communicating this adequately, perhaps we need to restore some of this material:

• In Australia, Deon Kamien, president of the Union of Jewish Students in Victoria, said: "A lot of students who would feel very comfortable wearing a kippah or T-shirt with Hebrew words on it now feel they are being targeted as Jews — not supporters of Israel, but Jews. When they walk past socialist stalls (on campus) they are called f---ing Jews." (Zwartz, Barney & Morton, Adam. "An unholy alliance", The Age, September 4, 2006.)

• In the UK, the University of Manchester students' union proposed a motion in 2002 that anti-Zionism was not anti-Semitism, and that Israeli goods should be boycotted. During the voting phase, a leaflet from the General Union of Palestinian Students, quoting a neo-Nazi forgery, "Prophecy of Benjamin Franklin in Regard of the Jewish Race," was handed out to students lining up to vote. ("Report of the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Anti-Semitism" Template:PDFlink, September 2006, p.39.) The leaflet described Jews as vampires, and said that if they were not expelled from the United States, they would "enslave the country and destroy its economy." (ibid, p. 40) When the motion was defeated, a brick was thrown through the window of one Jewish student residence while a poster with the words "Slaughter the Jews" was stuck to its front door, and a knife was stuck in the door of another. (ibid)

• In Canada, an advertisement in the Globe and Mail on December 17, 2002, signed by 100 people, said that Canadian Jewish students are so traumatized by on-campus anti-Semitism that they dare not speak out in support of Israel or Judaism. (Gerstenfeld, Manfred. "The Academic Boycott Against Israel", Jewish Political Studies Review 15:3-4 (Fall 2003))

• In France, Patrick Klugman, President of the Union of French Jewish Students (UEJF), wrote in Le Figaro: "On some university campuses ... the climate has become very difficult for Jews. In the name of the Palestinian cause, they are castigated as if they were Israeli soldiers! We hear 'death to the Jews' during demonstrations which are supposed to defend the Palestinian cause. Last April, our office was the target of a Molotov cocktail. As a condition for condemning this attack, the lecturers demanded that the UEJF declare a principled position against Israel!" (ibid)

Pertn, do you feel the allegation of antisemitism (new or otherwise) would be used inappropriately of these examples? SlimVirgin 16:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You're asking Pertn if he/she thinks it's antisemitic to throw bricks, knives, and molotov cocktails at Jews because they're Jews? To distribute posters saying "Slaughter the Jews"? And this is your response to Pertn's saying this: "I do not see much evidence of antisemitism on the European left, and as a proponent of free speech do not at all like the attempts of labeling political statements about Israel as antisemitic"? I think if someone wanted to understand how the discourse of "new antisemitism" can be used exploitatively, as a bullying tactic to evade serious discussion, they'd need look no further than the preposterous question you've just asked.

What's your argument here? Pertn says she sees little evidence of left-wing antisemitism in Europe. I gave some examples, but there are hundreds of incidents like this being reported. What is your point exactly? SlimVirgin 19:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

My point is that of course these incidents are antisemitic, and that your purpose in "asking" Pertn if she agrees they are is to suggest that she's involved in apologetics. She thinks incidents like this are not representative of the orientation and direction of the European left; you think they are. The good-faith thing to do would be to try to demonstrate to her that they are indeed representative, not to pose rhetorical questions that insinuate she's an apologist for bigotry.--G-Dett 20:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

As for strictly ad hominem uses of the charge of antisemitism, some examples would be the vilification of Jimmy Carter, the vilification of Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, and the vilification of Tony Judt, just to take examples from the last year. Look at any of the annual reports compiled by the ADL about antisemitic "incidents" on U.S. campuses, where they – with a bad faith that verges on breathtaking – list incidents like bricks being thrown through the windows of Hillel buildings side-by-side with campus appearances by Hanan Ashrawi or Robert Fisk. I don't what experience you've had with American campuses, Slim, or with the false coin of "new antisemitism" so frivolously spent there on a regular basis. I don't know if you've read the bogus editorials in student newspapers and fraudulent accusations of neo-Nazism that are generated any time a student group has the courage to invite, say, Norman Finkelstein to speak. But if you'd like further examples of wholly spurious invocations of NAS, read almost anything on the subject by Alan Dershowitz, Marty Peretz, Deborah Lipstadt, or Abe Foxman. It may be that your campus experience was in a British or European setting, Slim. When it comes to something like the proposed British boycott of Israeli academics, just to take an example, then yes I'm prepared to talk about antisemitism. In the context of American political or academic discourse, however, the invocation of antisemitism to describe criticism of Israeli policies is – though quite common – about 95% of the time sheer fraud.--G-Dett 17:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

" Look at any of the annual reports compiled by the ADL about antisemitic "incidents" on U.S. campuses, where they – with a bad faith that verges on breathtaking – list incidents like bricks being thrown through the windows of Hillel buildings side-by-side with campus appearances by Hanan Ashrawi or Robert Fisk. " OK, I'll bite; where would these be hidden? Anti-Semitism: USA Archive I wonder... is it antisemitic to be so sure of the Jews' oversensitivity (and why the heck are they so sensitive, anyway?) that you blithely state as fact that the ADL labels "campus appearances by Hanan Ashrawi or Robert Fisk" antisemitic incidents without even bothring to check your assumption? Gzuckier 18:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Gzuckier, your calling-of-bluffs would be the great triumph you hoped for had you posted it before 2001. The ADL's decline from courageous and pathbreaking civil-rights activism into political demagoguery was steady until then, precipitous after that. Not too long ago they were still publishing annual audits of anti-semitic events that were none other than, well, anti-semitic events, such as you'll find here. By 2002, they were lumping antisemitic incidents and "anti-Israel" events into a single category, making no distinctions at all between the two (pace the silly claims on this page that no one equates criticism of Israel with antisemitism and it's a "strawman" to say otherwise). So in their annual audits since then you get absurd sequences such as the following:

• 1. April 15 - Muslim student groups at University of California - Berkeley and UC - San Diego posted fliers featuring fabricated, distorted and out-of-context quotations from the Talmud and other rabbinical literature. Many of these anti-Semitic "quotations" are easily found on extremist Web sites. Samples include:

-- "A Jew is permitted to rape, cheat and perjure himself, but he must take care that he is not found out, so that Israel may not suffer."

-- "A Gentile girl who is three years old can be violated."

-- "The Jews are human beings, but the nations of the world are not human beings but beasts."

-- "When the Messiah comes, every Jew will have 2800 slaves."

• 1. April 15 - The Gaza Strip, a one-sided film that is severely critical of Israel, was screened at New Jersey's Drew University.

You heard that right, the academy-award-nominated James Longley makes it onto their list, right after pamphleteering about the Jewish right to rape and violate three-year-olds. (Add him to the examples Slim asked for.) Now scan to the bottom of the list and you'll find what you were after:

• 1. January 23 - Hanan Ashrawi, the Palestinian spokeswoman was a guest lecturer at Calvin College (Grand Rapids, MI).

Sorry, I was wrong about Robert Fisk. But have a good look at the (black)list: I trust you'll concede that if Fisk had made an appearance on a U.S. campus in 2002, the ADL would not have hesitated to include him, right there alongside "fliers appeared on campus with an anti-Semitic diatribe written by the right-wing extremist and former Klansman David Duke," "a rock was thrown through the students' front window (where an Israeli flag had been displayed) and their car, parked out front, was also vandalized," etc. etc.

Let it be absolutely clear I'm not talking about "Jews" being "oversensitive." I'm talking about political groups being demagogic. I never gave much thought to the ethnic dimension of any of this, but in my experience "Jews" on American campuses are, like "Jews" in American life and letters generally, politically all over the map; and certainly active in substantial numbers on both sides of the debates about a) the moral legitimacy of the occupation, and b) the explanatory force and strategic purpose of the theory of "new antisemitism."

Cheers,--G-Dett 19:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, point to you on this one, I stand educated and humble. Gzuckier 20:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Point to you for fair play. I have a weakness for gloating over every returned serve. Sorry. Back to deuce :).--G-Dett 20:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not able to follow your argument. "Jews are ... politically all over the map." So what? That didn't stop sympathetic Jews at Stop the War rallies in the UK from being assaulted. What exactly is your argument (argument, please, not rhetoric). SlimVirgin 19:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Slim, which argument are you having trouble following? The point about Jews being all over the map was that "Jews" should not be conflated with zealots exploiting the "new antisemitism" thesis as a bullying tactic, that the target of my comments is political propaganda not individual or communal "sensitivity." You raise a serious issue about the UK rallies, but with respect it's a complete non-sequitur coming after my points about American academia and the ADL. I included the ADL information because Gzuckier asked for it, apparently not believing it existed. Anything else?--G-Dett 20:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

But the "zealots exploiting the "new antisemitism" thesis as a bullying tactic" are just a fantasy of yours, conjured up in an attempt to excuse antisemitism. For that matter, it's a given that all antisemites try to excuse their antisemitism, explaining that what they provide is actually legitimate criticism of bad actions of Jews; it should be no surprise that the left does it just as much as the right, or perhaps even more. Jayjg 21:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I'm being obtuse, G-Dett, but I can't see an argument in your posts. Jews all over the world, but particularly in Europe, are saying they feel increasingly that they're the target of antisemitism, and that a lot of it is coming from the left or is condoned by the left. You seem to be saying that some of the examples they give are so disgusting that I'm hitting below the belt by mentioning them. SlimVirgin 21:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I have a feeling that SlimVirgin will never see the argument in G-Dett's posts, no matter how lucidly or effectively that argument is presented. (Btw, did Jayjg just accuse G-Dett of condoning antisemitism? If so, I rather think that would be a serious violation of WP:CIVIL and necessitate an immediate apology.) CJCurrie 23:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

If you have it within you to be constructive, I for one would really appreciate it. SlimVirgin 23:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

My previous remark was based on an honest assessment of my past experiences on this page, and on others. G-Dett has raised serious arguments about political demagogery, and you have not responded to her concerns. From my experience, you have ignored serious arguments raised by opponents with such frequency that these occasions constitute a discernable pattern. Constructive dialogue has to work both ways. Incidentally, do you have any comments about Jayjg's remark? CJCurrie 23:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This isn't Usenet. We're here to discuss sources, and of course we can present arguments insofar as we're trying to work out how to use sources, but this constant sniping goes too far. I don't see an argument in G-Dett's posts and I don't believe there is one. Perhaps instead of mentioning "serious arguments about political demagogery," you could paraphrase what the actual argument is. All I see is that various sources are saying this is an example of left-wing antisemitism, and that is an example of left-wing antisemitism, and G-Dett is either saying "no, it isn't" (which isn't an argument), or yes it is, but it's so awful, it was outrageous of you to mention it (also not an argument). SlimVirgin 23:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett's argument appears to be one that has already appeared in many published sources: that some (not all) of what is called "new antisemitism" has been mislabeled for political ends. Drawing attention to actual instances of antisemitism does not refute this argument, since no one disputes that actual instances of antisemitism have occurred in recent years (for that matter, no one disputes that some antisemitism has emanated from the political left, and I don't believe anyone in this discussion disputes that antisemitic activities have increased since 2000.) Perhaps G-Dett can summarize the argument better. Now, do you have anything to say about Jay's comments? CJCurrie 00:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

If that was his argument, it wasn't an argument related to the exchange I had with Pern, which was that she said she didn't see a significant problem with antisemitism on the left, and I responded by giving her examples of quite shocking situations, which are far from isolated. To respond by saying that "some" of what's called antisemitism has been mislabeled is not an argument, because "some" clearly hasn't been mislabeled, and so long as "some" antisemitism is coming from the left in sufficient quantity that Jews all over the world, not just the ADL, are talking and writing about it, then clearly there's something going on, call it what you will. Again, you're getting too hooked up on the term. The idea is that there's something afoot, which is similar to, but not quite like, previous things that have been afoot. You're almost trying to mount an argument based on linguistic philosophy, but that's been dead in the water for decades. SlimVirgin 00:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Slim, the position that some of what's been called "new antisemitism" has been mislabeled as antisemitism for political ends *is most certainly* an argument. I could add in passing that you should not assume, or even imply, that "Jews all over the world" hold a single or united position in this debate. Now, do you have anything to say about Jay's comments? CJCurrie 00:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

CJC, you keep ignoring or distorting what I say. I said that if some of what's been called "new antisemitism" has been mislabeled as antisemitism, some has not. And I didn't say Jews all over the world held a single position; I said Jews all over the world were talking and writing about it, which they are — all talking and writing about a non-existent "it," according to you. SlimVirgin 00:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this assessment is that many Jews have been among the most vocal of those doubting the "it"'s existence. No one has ever disputed that some of what's been called "new antisemitism" actually is antisemitism; the debate has to do with other issues of interpretation. I could respond in more detail, but there's probably no need; this back-and-forth is becoming increasingly pointless. Btw, do you have anything to say about Jayjg's comments? (In case you've forgotten, here's what I wrote the first time: Btw, did Jayjg just accuse G-Dett of condoning antisemitism? If so, I rather think that would be a serious violation of WP:CIVIL and necessitate an immediate apology.)CJCurrie 02:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that what started out as a legitimate debate about the value of a certain section of the article has turned into an illegitimate debate about whether new anti-Semitism is a subject worthy of an article on Misplaced Pages. Clearly, it is worthy of a Misplaced Pages article reguardless of any individual's opinion on the phenomenon. It seems to me like time and energy would be better spent improving an article than needless debating over an issue that has been decided way before the debate began. --GHcool 01:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that my recent exchange with SlimVirgin seemed to be shifting into a discussion on how the term should be defined. I've never disputed that "new antisemitism" is a subject deserving of an entry; I simply wish we could convey the debates over "NAS" in a neutral manner, rather than using the page to promote the term. CJCurrie 02:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Slim, my argument was that there is strong evidence indeed of (new) antisemitism being invoked in bad faith and for the transparent political purpose of shackling debate about the occupation in taboo. That was the point of my supplying details of the ADL blacklist. The second point was that you were dealing evasively with Pertn's argument that antisemitism does not figure prominently in the European left. Instead of trying to demonstrate that it does indeed figure prominently, you gave her several obvious examples of it, indeed "shocking" examples as you say, and then challenged her to deny that they constituted antisemitism. I suggested you were being a bit of a demagogue yourself. Her point was not that "Slaughter the Jews" wasn't antisemitic; her point was that "Slaughter the Jews" was not a prominent or influential sentiment among the European left.

Your reply to this simple, amply detailed and supported argument, is to say that a) you don't understand it, and that b) it's hogwash anyway:

saying that "some" of what's called antisemitism has been mislabeled is not an argument, because "some" clearly hasn't been mislabeled, and so long as "some" antisemitism is coming from the left in sufficient quantity that Jews all over the world, not just the ADL, are talking and writing about it, then clearly there's something going on, call it what you will. Again, you're getting too hooked up on the term. The idea is that there's something afoot, which is similar to, but not quite like, previous things that have been afoot.

I can't argue with this any more than I can arm-wrestle with a sea cow or pin a fog bank to a wrestling mat. I can only hope that the literate will see it for the gaseous mystification that it is, and place hope meanwhile in the evaporative effects of a few general observations. Reality being complex, there are usually several things afoot at once. In this case, one of the things afoot is antisemitism, some of it old and deep-rooted, some of it newly conceived in anger about the Israel/Palestine conflict. (Much like Islamophobia among Americans and Israelis, some of which is old and deep-rooted, and some of which is fed by anger about terrorism, Islamism and extremism.) Another thing afoot, however is a wave of propaganda, defamation, and charlatanry of the sort I have detailed, Jay has denied, and you have ignored. Both of these categories of phenomena are very real and very nasty; and both of them, unfortunately, are integral to the concept/theory/discourse of "New Antisemitism" in its current incarnation. We should cover both, and participate in neither.--G-Dett 04:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

We do cover both. We arguably cover the anti position to a greater degree than it's covered in the literature, given that most reliable sources who comment on NAS comment in its favor. SlimVirgin 01:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

My introduction to New Antisemitism was the following from Jerome Chanes:

"Finally, there is Alexander Cockburn. What has not already been said about Cockburn, a fine wordsmith, a sharp polemicist - and, frankly, an intractable foe of Jewish interests? The tropes of 'the Israel lobby' resonate throughout The Politics of Anti-Semitism, a collection of essays (co-edited by Jeffrey St. Clair),14 that culminate in a self-serving complaint by Cockburn himself ("My life as an 'Anti-Semite'") in which he offers his definition of antisemitism: 'to have written an item that pisses off someone at The New Republic.'

"In fact, Cockburn and St. Clair's book does serve a larger purpose (which justifies addressing it), in that it illuminates, as does Dershowitz's book, the nuanced and highly-permeable borders between criticism of the policies of the government of Israel and 'Israelophobia' or anti-Israelism. In a word, 'the new antisemitism.'"

In my view, the question behind all of this is "why." Why a theory on New Antisemitism? The irony is, nobody would ask a Republican why he objected to a theory that the "New Racism" is voting Republican. Nobody would ask a Democrat why she objected to research on the correlation between Democrats and treason. The objection is obvious: such theories politicize evil. That may not even be their intent, but that's what they do, and that's what drives reasonable opponents nuts. Indeed, it's exactly what Brian Klug says very well: "People of goodwill who support the Palestinians resent being falsely accused of being anti-Semites." I'd add, some resent when this happens to others as well.

In truth, I think there's a strong argument to be made that the real concern here would be if people on the left didn't object to this theory. This is a theory, after all, that the "new" antisemitism comes from the left (at least as represented here). Such a failure to object, actually, would much more resemble the silence of Republican Party on its notorious Southern Strategy, which indeed did indicate its tacit acceptance. To be clear, of course, nobody should deny that there is antisemitism on the left, as no one here has done. The question, broadly, is whether the "New Antisemitism" should be coined as a phenomenon of the left. If you're on the left, I really don't see how you couldn't object to this theory. At least in the U.S., one of the primary tenets on the left is the opposition to bigotry. Mackan79 21:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Every book and article on new anti-Semitism, including this Misplaced Pages article, clearly explain that new anti-Semitism is as much on the radical right as it is on the radical left. Occasionally, there is a strange mix of the two polar extremes, such as when the American ultra-left-wing professor Noam Chomsky went on Lebanese Shia ultra-right-wing Islamist political party Hezbollah's Al-Manar television station to praise the terrorist organization that later began the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. The religious Christian right is a mixed bag as well, some support groups Israel wholeheartedly while other groups cannot wait until the Jews are pushed into the sea. Certainly the Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazi organizations would be part of the radical right that fits under the umbrella of the new anti-Semitism. In short, the claim that new anti-Semitism is a right-wing attack on the left, is a demonstrably false one designed either to pick a fight or to delegitimize the subject of new anti-Semitism altogether. Neither motive is welcome on Misplaced Pages. --GHcool 05:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not a right-wing attack, but it is an attack on the left. According to our lead, which I think is semi-accurate, the only thing that makes NAS "new" is a change in direction. The two other points, 1. upsurge, and 2. acceptance, don't say what is new. Then you look at the new directions and see 1.) Left, 2.) Far-right, and 3.) Islam, as opposed to previously where we said it was almost entirely from the Right. So basically, "New Antisemitism" is antisemitism moved to the left, which has surged, and which is gaining acceptance. If there's another message in the first sentence, I don't know what it is.

I actually don't think that's accurate, because like you, I think NAS is primarily a theory that anti-Israel rhetoric has become antisemitic, and possibly about strange bedfellows. Now, if that were supported conservatively, based on clear evidences of such antisemitism, I think the Left would strongly support it. The actual debates we're having here, though, are things like "Should we repeat when groups who have commented on this clearly state that criticism of Israel isn't necessarily antisemitic"? Several editors are opposing these kinds of clarifications. This raises the question: what exactly is going on here? Are we really going after antisemitism with this theory? If so, I'd think we'd want to make its scope absolutely as clearly as possible, to gain the broadest coalition. When that's resisted, it simply starts to look more and more like an effort to tar the left (via specifically tarring Israel critics) than to actually get a better view of antisemitism.

I say it looks like that kind of effort, but broadly, I don't even think that's what it is. Supporters of the theory may act entirely in good faith, and simply aren't concerned about the political consequences, or consider them a positive side effect. Thus the Left says "You're tarring me," and the NAists say "You're supporting antisemites," and an intractable debate is born. Mackan79 17:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Mackan79, the distinction you make in your last paragraph between intention and effect is an important one. Apart from a few (lamentably influential) demagogues, I think probably most who invoke "new antisemitism" do so out of good-faith concern about anti-Jewish bigotry, but are tangentially content to let the conceptual framework handicap (in both senses, to cripple and to tip the balance of) discussion of Israeli policies. Those who share their good-faith concern about anti-Jewish bigotry but oppose occupation policies are likely to stick with traditional terminology and avoid the theoretical framework of "new antisemitism," on the grounds that its explanatory payoff is small, its political liabilities significant, and its potential for exploitative mystification very large.

Now, regarding what the article needs once it's unblocked. I agree with Slim that it does touch on both of the topics comprised by the term "new antisemitism" (one, the contemporary evolution of anti-Jewish bigotry, and two, the invocation of same to contaminate critics of the occupation). The problem is, discussion of the latter topic is limited to subsection 2, where its treatment is moreover scattered and disorganized, bisected by sub-subsections on the "third wave" and "fourth wave," section headings which don't argue for the theory but merely presuppose it. As do the next two large subsections, "Political directions" and "Responses." In other words, the article as a whole begs the question by embedding critique of the theory within an overall structure that isolates and marginalizes that critique.

What we're left with is a (false) impression that on the one hand there's a large group of people, not only ordinary Jewish people but mainstream organizations, scholars, and government figures who all agree there's something called "new antisemitism" which is unacceptable and needs to be combatted; and on the other hand a small minority of figures who for this or that reason oppose the consensus on this theory, and who don't see much cause for concern about contemporary antisemitism. That's wrong. One indication of the wrongness of this structure for our article, the radical distortion of subject matter it entails, is to be found in our use of Edward Said's concern about Arab antisemitism to buttress the NAS thesis, which he by and large rejected. Another indication, closer to home because right on this talk page, is the crazy question put to Pertn by Slim as to whether she believed physical and verbal attacks on Jews qua Jews constituted antisemitism. Slim's question presupposes that a critical take on the theory of "new antisemitism" entails quiescence, complacency, or denial about bigotry. Maybe Slim asked the question in good faith and I've done her an injustice. This talk-page fallacy may simply be an understandable by-product of our fallacious framing of the article itself.

The actual situation, which the structure of our article should reflect, is that you've got near-unanimity among notable writers, scholars, and government figures that contemporary antisemitism is a problem, is unacceptable and should be combatted. Unanimity ends there, however. Some (they may or may not be a majority) think that the best way for us to combat it is to define it theoretically as a kind of multi-headed Hydra called "new antisemitism," organically singular and self-identical if protean in its manifestations; and that having once defined it as such we should bring the concept to bear not only on hate crimes and related phenomena but on discussion of the Israeli occupation, American foreign policy, and other related matters. Others prefer traditional distinctions and a traditional vocabulary, and think the theory is a mystification which inhibits legitimate discussion of political issues, and in so wilfully blurring lines does nothing to explain, expose, resist, or defeat the actual forms of bigotry which it purports to take as its subject.

Both the EUMC paper and the British all-party parliamentary inquiry are aware of the nature of this division, even if we aren't, and though their findings were indeed more warmly embraced by the first group than the second, they did take care, rhetorically at least, not to foreclose that debate or to come down explicitly on one side or the other of it. --G-Dett 19:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

That's an awfully long post considering that its implications negate its necessity. If what you wrote truly reflected the reality of the situation, this article, and this phenomenon, wouldn't exist. Since, as I said above to Mackan, it clearly does exist, you must be wrong, and thus, you your long post was waste of your time to write and my time to read. --GHcool 03:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter and Palestine Peace Not Apartheid

From reading this section of the Palestine Peace Not Apartheid article and in particular Abraham Foxman's comments relative to the matter it would seem appropriate to mention Carter in this article surrounding his book. Even news organizations like the San Francisco Chronicle and New York Times are prominently mentioning his name in the articles like this one and this one. (→Netscott) 16:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Why should he be mentioned? Many have accused him of a one-sided political approach to the mid-east conflict, and of carelessly tossing around incendiary and inflammatory language, but few serious commentators have accused him of antisemitism... AnonMoos 16:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps few serious commentators have accused him of antisemitism but those few (Foxman in particular) are rather prominent. If such folks are describing Carter utilizing the term antisemitism and he's criticizing Israel with his book and he himself is so notable it would only be logical to add a mention of this example here. (→Netscott) 16:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Netscott, we've tried to avoid using any of the usual non-scholarly commentators in this article, for the simple reason that there are too many of them. We've made an exception for some of the more serious journalists and writers such as Tariq Ali, but to start introducing Jimmy Carter and Abe Foxman leads us down the usual path of such articles on Misplaced Pages, which is that it would turn into a long list of "A said this, but B said that, and C replied with, while D noted ...." Articles like that are bad writing, impossible to read, and basically just a copy of what's floating around on Google, with no connecting narrative, and no answer to the question of "Yes, but what is this actually about?" That's the question this article tries to answer. SlimVirgin 19:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The point about this not becoming another A-said-this-B-said-that article is well taken. But the article seems to have set a very high bar for sources critical of the theory, and a very low bar for sources that support it. This is also unacceptable.

Most of the sources quoted in support are academics who specialize entirely or to some extent in this area. SlimVirgin 09:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

That you offer Tariq Ali as the illustrative example of an exception to the scholarly-sources-only rule is very odd. It's true he has no doctorate, but he is widely acknowledged as a historian, and writes regularly in venues that are largely produced and consumed by academics (the London Review of Books, the New Left Review, etc.). It would be comparable to describing James Wood or R.P. Blackmur as "non-scholarly commentators" in a literary article.

Ali has no expertise in this area. SlimVirgin 09:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Better examples of the use of non-scholarly comment are provided by the quotations from U.S. News & World Report, Searchlight Magazine, Commentary, the Sunday Times, Fiamma Nirenstein, Hillel Halkin, Peter Beaumont, etc.

The problem I see with including Carter is a different one. Despite the strange claims made on this page that no one equates criticism of Israel with antisemitism, there is in fact no serious and prominent critic of Israeli policies (in the American public sphere at least) who has not been prominently accused of antisemitism. The reason I see for trying to limit the scope of the present page to academic sources is that – despite the efforts of Campus Watch, David Horowitz, Stanley Kurtz, MEQ, Martin Kramer et al – the witch hunt is more restrained within the academy, and the topic more responsibly defined, scrutinized, and addressed, if only due to the mechanisms of peer review.

That's right; we've tried to use responsible sources. SlimVirgin 09:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

On the topic of scholarly comment, we need to get Judith Butler's work into the article. --G-Dett 16:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Why? SlimVirgin 09:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Why indeed? Butler looks, at best, to be Phyllis Chesler's counterpart, and we don't quote Chesler, who actually wrote a whole book on the subject. Jayjg 09:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the section which used those sources? Again, it was the section in which Finkelstein gets to promote his views against the phenomenon. As is quite typical, it is those opposed to the idea who bring in "non-scholarly comment" as strawmen to beat up, much as they like to quote Foxman. As for Searchlight, it was part of the British Inquiry. The sources used in this article to actually support the idea are quite good; it is mostly the strawmen used by the opponents that are weaker. On the other hand, Ali (like Chomsky) has no particular expertise in this area; popular polemics don't count as scholarship, even if written by people who have expertise in other areas (e.g. linguistics). Jayjg 23:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Jay, I partially take your point about non-scholarly "strawmen," which has some validity for three of the seven sources I listed. To argue that critics of the concept "like to quote Foxman" and other hysterics because they make good strawmen, however, overlooks how much influence the Foxmans and Dershowitzs have in the national discussion about these matters. How do you define expertise with regards to people like Chomsky and Ali? Do you mean only people who have filed dissertations on a topic have expertise? In Chomsky's case in particular, you might explain your criteria. I know there's a good of fluff (collections of softball interviews and so on) printed and sold with his name on it, but he has written several very highly regarded books on Israel, Palestine, foreign policy, the mass media, the propaganda model in free societies, etc., all of which place him well (in the eyes of many) to weigh in on the discourse of "new antisemitism" and its political uses. Of course many proponents of the NAS concept will think Chomsky's full of baloney, but the issue there is not a lack of expertise, at least not as I understand it. I'm not making an ideological judgment when I say this. There's plenty of pro-Palestinian stuff that is indeed popular polemics: you can find examples in The Nation, The Guardian, ZMAG etc. – and saying this does not disparage them. But The Fateful Triangle, Manufacturing Consent etc. are works of a different order of expertise, I think you'll have to concede.--G-Dett 04:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hardly; Chomsky's political works are polemics that are only slightly better than Foxman's and Chesler's work, probably on a par with Dershowitz's. Propaganda is propaganda, and Chomsky's highly selective and unbalanced narratives are popular, but far from scholarly. Just because a linguist is good at writing propaganda, that doesn't make it any less propaganda. As for expertise, academics whose area of expertise is the topic under discussion would count as experts. That would leave out Ali and Chomsky as much as it leaves out Dershowitz and Chesler, both of whom are also academics. Jayjg 21:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't just come down to opinions and impressions, Jay, yours versus mine. Expertise and influence are measured (roughly but objectively) by scholarly citation indices. As you probably know (since it's mentioned in the Misplaced Pages entry on him), "according to the Arts and Humanities Citation Index in 1992, Chomsky was cited as a source more often than any other living scholar during the 1980–1992 time period, and was the eighth most cited scholar in any time period." The top ten scholarly citation rankings for all time are Marx, Lenin, Shakespeare, Aristotle, the Bible, Plato, Freud, Chomsky, Hegel and Cicero, in that order. What you might not know, since it's not mentioned in Misplaced Pages, is that Chomsky is also the most widely cited living scholar in the Social Sciences Citation Index. Discussions of syntactic structures and deep grammar constitute only a fraction of the citations compiled therein.

Do you have a source for this last point? SlimVirgin 09:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Depending on how one frames the comparative search between Dershowitz and Chomsky (i.e. by citation, or by scholarly articles about them, or by book reviews, etc.), Dershowitz's citation ratings rank anywhere from 3% to 10% of Chomsky's, roughly.

It makes sense to talk about Dershowitz as a popular polemicist. His books have always been bestsellers, are generally favorably reviewed by the popular press, and have a hit-and-miss reception among legal scholars. In disciplines beyond that – including foreign-policy and Middle-East-related disciplines – his work is generally smiled at or ignored altogether.

Chomsky is a polemical scholar, obviously, but it doesn't make a lot of sense to talk about him as a "popular polemicist" in the Dershowitz mode. 9-11, a repackaging of interviews, was his first best-seller and one of his first books to get any attention from the popular press, which was mostly dismissive. His influence among scholars is a different matter, as indicated above, and was in fact was at its apex during a period well before he became a bestselling author.

I trust it will be amply apparent that your position on expertise – "As for expertise, academics whose area of expertise is the topic under discussion would count as experts" – is a complete tautology. It avoids the challenge facing it by coiling tightly in upon itself, like a startled ball python. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by G-Dett (talk • contribs) 15:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

How on earth is that a tautology? SlimVirgin 09:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Chomsky's polemical success does not make him an expert in anything but linguistics, and the fact that he writes persuasively and promotes a political agenda popular in academia still does not make him an expert in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, much less antisemitism. Unsurprisingly, historians specializing in Israel are the people who are actually experts on that topic, just as scholars of antisemitism are the people who are actually experts on antisemitism. That's not a tautology. Does Chomsky teach these topics in University? Did he specialize in the study of it? Did he write a PhD thesis on the topics? For some reason just about everyone feels they have a valid opinion worth expressing about Israel, antisemitism, and other related topics, regardless of whether or not they have actually done any real study of the topic; witness this article and its Talk: page for evidence. Jayjg 06:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Tautologies aren't easily recognized as such by those whose belief-systems are encapsulated by them. If I say "democracy is the best system of government because it reflects the will of the people," it will take a moment or two, maybe longer, for persons on this page to recognize it as a tautology. If I say "Islamic law is the best legal system because it reflects the will of Allah," the moment of recognition will arrive a little more quickly.

I would have thought however that Jay's argument – "academics whose area of expertise is the topic under discussion would count as experts" – would be obviously tautological to anyone, if only because it bounces around so airlessly between "expertise" and "experts" without giving any external purchase to the definition of either. But perhaps those who begin from a position of overwhelming agreement (that Chomsky lacks relevant expertise) might not recognize Jay's pseudo-common sense for the tautology it is.

G-dett, please stop this. The examples you give are not tautologies. Yes, there is a degree of circularity, but not enough to be tautological. I don't see how these — to paraphrase you — pseudo-intellectual discussions are getting us anywhere. SlimVirgin 01:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I should stress that in Jay's latest post, he emerges from this tautological bubble of belief and offers a few definitions. 1. The only relevant scholarly fields for this article, he says, are Israeli history and antisemitism. 2. Expertise means having filed a PhD thesis on one of these topics, and teaching University courses on one or both of these topics.

I disagree with both arguments. 1. I think relevant scholary fields for this page should include Palestinian history, political science, comparative nationalisms, and media studies at the very least. I think that since "New Antisemitism" comprises two related topics – one, the evolving forms of anti-Jewish bigotry, and two, the demagogic exploitation/mystification of that bigotry for political purposes – then we obviously need an ampler definition of relevant expertise. 2. Expertise should not be defined exclusively by dissertation topic. I offered James Wood and R.P. Blackmur (possibly the two most influential academic literary critics of their respective generations, the one with his bachelor's degree and the other with his high school diploma) as reductios of this logic. Nor do I think University teaching experience is decisive, but for what it's worth Chomsky has taught regular courses in international politics, foreign policy, etc. at MIT. I think we should leave the question of expertise to the relevant disciplines, and not dismiss the weight of opinion in these circles as a function of having an "agenda popular in academia." To do this latter is to place the opinions of Misplaced Pages editors/administrators higher than the mechanisms of peer review in establishing disciplinary expertise. Scholarly citation indices are the customary way of roughly but objectively measuring the standing of scholars within various fields. Chomsky does very well by these measures, and we're not in a good position as Misplaced Pages editors to second-guess them.--G-Dett 16:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you have just exposed an implicit tautology of your own. You promote the narrative that insists "New antisemitism" is a an anti-Palestinian political/media ploy (or in your words "demagogic exploitation/mystification of that bigotry for political purposes"), and, as a result, insist that people with expertise in media, Palestinian history, and media are relevant scholars. In any event, you've strayed a bit too far into your well-worn insult groove ("Jay's pseudo-common sense", "in Jay's latest post, he emerges from this tautological bubble of belief", etc.) I had hoped you had cured yourself of these almost reflexive violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, but apparently your healing will take more time. You know what happens next; your comments are completely ignored until you work out your issues, and return to proper use of the Talk: pages. Good luck! Jayjg 00:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have to stop responding too. I've tried to find arguments in what's being said, but I can find only rhetoric, much of it inconsistent, and we're not here to debate the issues anyway. SlimVirgin 01:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I find Jayjg's concluding remarks somewhat ironic in light of this. CJCurrie 03:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Break

Of course, it's not for us to decide whether NAS is demagogic or not; it's for us to quote reliable sources. The idea that historians are more qualified to comment on NAS than political scientists so far simply hasn't been supported. As to ignoring users who make personal attacks, I think we'd be left with a pretty silent talk page. Or perhaps an even louder one, or perhaps the same talk page we have... Mackan79 06:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Who has said that historians are more qualified than political scientists to comment? SlimVirgin 06:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg said this: "Chomsky's polemical success does not make him an expert in anything but linguistics, and the fact that he writes persuasively and promotes a political agenda popular in academia still does not make him an expert in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, much less antisemitism. Unsurprisingly, historians specializing in Israel are the people who are actually experts on that topic, just as scholars of antisemitism are the people who are actually experts on antisemitism." He also just disparaged the idea that people with expertise in "media, Palestinian history, and media" are relevant. I disagree: I don't think historians specializing in Israel are the only ones with expertise in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I think Chomsky's political science expertise qualifies him as well. Also, did you need to change around the talk page? It didn't seem to clarify the conversation. Mackan79 06:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg didn't say that historians are more qualified than political scientists to comment, and Chomsky's not a political scientist. Who actually said historians are more qualified than political scientists to comment? SlimVirgin 07:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself ... CJCurrie 03:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

At the same time, it's kind of concerning if you truly can't understand any reasonable opposition to the theory. I trust you can, but I also agree we're ready to get back to specific issues. Mackan79 06:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, I think this is actually a very well-written article, as I've said before, which does mostly capture the viewpoints. I'd say the main problems are specific, and relate to the "Responses" section. At the same time (brace): if Butler and Chesler are counterparts, per the discussion above, should we not note both? I know there's been an effort to omit the more partisan debate, and that has merit, but of course, there's a subtle POV in that decision also, just as there is in exclusively focusing on historians to document what is largely a contemporary political debate. I'm not saying to go overboard, but a fair discussion of the more lively theorists would seem like it could and should have a greater place in this article, if recounted responsibly. Maybe a section on two like Butler and Chesler would help this, and still be palatable. Mackan79 20:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

There's already plenty of material in the article, it's not like we need more, particularly if we already have better sources. Jayjg 00:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Better according to whom? Anyway, I can't say I'd like a more inflammatory article. Just a thought. Mackan79 06:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Page protection

The last 50 edits are almost all edit-warring; only the last bit is by an anon. I think that full protection, not semi-protections, is needed. People are talking, which is great, but talking while reverting isn't good. Guettarda 19:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

"Progressive" Jewish Thought & The New Anti-Semitism

The conservative American Jewish Committee released a document/report entitled "Progressive" Jewish Thought & The New Anti-Semitism that was covered today in this news story in New York Times. --64.230.121.37 04:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm ... yes, I think we should add this to the article, once page protection is lifted. Btw, the latter piece was also printed in the International Herald Tribune: . CJCurrie 05:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems pretty clear to me that one major way that antisemitism is spreading is by the mere fact that the term includes more and more bordering on the absurd. Well well. When the article is unlocked, someone should include this in the article, and not least the comments mentioned in NYT. quite a few good ones there. pertn 14:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Reflecting the UK All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry in the article

I posted this on Mackan's talk page, now reposted here in the hope of getting more comments.

I have been trying to step back a bit to examine why the article would refer to this report and what bits it would refer to. I would really appreciate your view on this and then afterwards maybe we could turn to how it should be done.

The existence of the inquiry is clearly significant to the Antisemitism article, as it was a response to a real and perceived rise in antisemitic incidents and antisemitic discourse.

So, to what extent is the fact of this inquiry and its report relevant to the article New antisemitism, the purpose of which is to explain "new antisemitism" as a (contested) concept? Only tangentially, one might argue. Although the inquiry was set up in response to a rise in antisemitism, only some authors, not all, identify that rise as new antisemitism. If the article is about "new antisemitism" as a concept not as a phenomenon, then it is hard to say that the inquiry is relevant.

There is however, an overriding argument in favour of the use of the inquiry report as a source in the New antisemitism article. Because the recent rise in antisemitism (occasioning the inquiry) has been accompanied by a large amount of discussion of the term "new antisemitism", then the report will necessarily address questions that are at issue in that discussion (for example, the newness of this recent antisemitism, whether all criticism of Israel is antisemitic, the extent of antisemitism on the Left and among Muslims).

Since the fact of the inquiry’s establishment is pertinent to the article, the article should briefly summarise, in the report’s own terms, the context in which the inquiry was established, the purpose of the inquiry and what its recommendations were.

Next, the debate around "new antisemitism" as presented in the article, suggests a number of questions on which the inquiry's views are relevant and should, if possible, be cited. Some of these would seem to be:

• How does the report define the term “antisemitism”?
• What does it say about the term “new antisemitism”?
• What does it say about whether criticism of Israel is antisemitic?
• What does it say about antisemitism on the Left?
• What does it say about antisemitism among Muslims?
• What does it say about a coalescence of views between the Right, Muslims and the Left (or any two of these)?

These are not exhaustive and it goes without saying that the report is a reliable source in WP terms and can be drawn on for further factual information. These could include points that the report makes in passing so long as the general argument of the report is not thereby distorted.

Itsmejudith 10:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This sounds reasonable. As I see it it adresses some of the problems I mentioned in the part here about the "responses" section. pertn 11:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Itsmejudith's suggestions and cogent framing of the matter at hand.--G-Dett 14:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Also repeating, I agree this is the right kind of framework, to make it more explanatory and less point-by-pointish. I made my effort, so I'm interested to see yours. At the same time, I'd say conciseness is good, as long as the line of thought and neutrality remains clear. Mackan79 14:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The "New antisemitism" in the UK

• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=433030&in_page_id=1770
• http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2004144,00.html
• http://www.guardian.co.uk/race/story/0,,2003523,00.html

--172.132.153.245 03:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to know why the Nader bit was deleted from this article considering it was so well sourced (Washington Post, Video, ADL website, etc)? He was a U.S. presidential canidate 3 times, you know? --172.132.153.245 03:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Again I ask why the Nader information was deleted form the article without any discussion here on the talk page? It was fully sourced -- it was as follows:

In August 2004 during his presidential campaign, Ralph Nader was criticized for expressing what many saw as antisemitic attitudes when he "suggested that President Bush and Congress were 'puppets' of the Israeli government" . Nader is quoted as saying that: "The days when the chief Israeli puppeteer comes to the United States and meets with the puppet in the White House and then proceeds to Capitol Hill, where he meets with hundreds of other puppets, should be replaced" . Nader's statements regarding the Israeli influence on American foreign policy and American politicians brought him much criticism from the Anti-Defamation League and other Jewish organizations. Abraham Foxman, the head of the Anti-Defamation League, was quoted soon after Nader made the comments, stating that "What he said smacks of bigotry" . Foxman, in an open letter to Nader about his comment(s), wrote: "...the image of the Jewish State as a 'puppeteer,' controlling the powerful U.S. Congress feeds into many age-old stereotypes which have no place in legitimate public discourse" Nader's response to Foxman can be found here, and Foxman's counter-reply to Nader's letter is here.

Here's another link at the Washington Post discussing the Nader controversy (), and an interview with Nader where he discusses what he said (). --WassermannNYC 16:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a good question, WassermannNYC.--72.70.90.114 16:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, Wassermann NYC, my old friend the Jew-identifier. Well, the reason it was removed was that it was trivia, not clearly an example of "New antisemitism" in any event, and you'd tried to stuff the identical text into 5 different articles. This article is about what reliable sources have to say about New antisemitism, not what Misplaced Pages editors with an ax to grind would like to POV-push into various articles. Jayjg 05:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

1. ^ Flannery, Edward H. The Anguish of the Jews: Twenty-Three Centuries of Antisemitism, Paulist Press, first published 1985; this edition 2004, p. 274.
2. Prager, Dennis & Telushkin, Joseph. Why the Jews? The Reason for Antisemitism. Simon and Shuster, 1983, p. 172, cited in Flannery, Edward H. The Anguish of the Jews: Twenty-Three Centuries of Antisemitism, Paulist Press, 2004, p. 274.
3. Rubinstein, William D. The Left, the Right and the Jews. Universe Books 1978, p. 77, cited in Flannery, Edward H. The Anguish of the Jews: Twenty-Three Centuries of Antisemitism, Paulist Press 2004, p. 274.
4. Flannery, Edward H. The Anguish of the Jews: Twenty-Three Centuries of Antisemitism, Paulist Press, first published 1985; this edition 2004, p. 275.

• Unassessed Jewish history-related articles
• Unknown-importance Jewish history-related articles
• WikiProject Jewish history articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Former good article nominees