Talk:New antisemitism - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tom harrison (talk | contribs) at 21:37, 2 March 2007 (→Wow, that was lively). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:37, 2 March 2007 by Tom harrison (talk | contribs) (→Wow, that was lively)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Template:Trollwarning

New antisemitism is currently a good article nominee. Nominated by an unspecified nominator at 21 February 2007

Please use the |page= parameter to specify the number of the next free GAN review page, or use {{subst:GAN}} instead to find the next free page automatically.

This article is not categorized by subtopic. Please edit the |subtopic= parameter on this talk page to include one. For a list of subtopics, please see Misplaced Pages:Good article nominations.

Software: Computing Unassessed

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software 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.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware
???	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.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Jewish history Unassessed

	Judaism portal 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

See Talk:New antisemitism/Flannery Section

Mediation

See Talk:New antisemitism/MediationFebruary2007

Defamatory Caricatures

File:Ariel Sharon by Latuff.jpg

From the Carlos Latuff - Ariel Sharon (Israeli PM) series.

i'm interested in adding to the size of the defamatory caricatures (perhaps create a subsection for it) and introduce this one when the article is open for editing:

Jaakobou 10:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

These cartoons appear to be vicious and nasty attacks on Ariel Sharon. Their connection to antisemitism is not clear. I have seen many cartoons which depict political figures as monsters, regardless of their religion or ethnicity. Andrew Levine 01:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Do you have a reliable source that says that those cartoons are an example of "new asntisemitism"? // Liftarn

Donald Rumsfeld compared Hugo Chávez to Hitler and nobody talked about "anti-Venezuelanism". The US imposes a selective boycott on Cuba, but not on Saudi Arabia, whose human rights violations are far worse, and no one talks about "anti-Cubanism." Count me among those who are unclear that the Sharon cartoons are intrinsically antisemitic.--Abenyosef 02:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

"Progressive" Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism

Why is there no mention of Alvin H. Rosenfeld's essay on here? The publication of the essay by the AJC and the response to it is by far the most notable event in the debate on New anti-Semitism yet you wouldn't know anything about it reading this article. -- Lyberry

The Term "Islamism"

It's clear that term term "Islamism" should be changed to "radical Islamism" or "militant Islamism" or some close variant thereof; as it stands now "Islamism" just simply isn't the correct term. Again, it's mostly radical/fringe Islamists that espouse beliefs thought to be part of the so-called "New antisemitism." One cannot lump the entire Islamic world (approx. 1.5 billion followers) in to one term -- it's the radical element of Islamists that are the "new antisemites," not ALL Muslims. Using such a broad term like "Islamism" implies ALL of Islam (the entirety of the Islamic world), and that is why I have a problem with this term. I cannot believe that glaring errors like this have sat in such closely watched article for so long -- this only shows that Misplaced Pages has a very long way to go before it can reach anything even remotely resembling 'NPOV.' I suggest that this be remedied ASAP. --WassermannNYC 05:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

"Radical Islam" would be better than "radical Islamism", wouldn't it? "Islamism" is a term which is reasonable synonymous with "Radical Islam," and "Islamist" is a synonym for "follower of radical Islam," not for "Muslim". I'd suggest that "Islamism" ought to be avoided so much as possible, given that clearer, less inflammatory, terms are available. john k 06:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Brian Klug pullquote

Which is stronger:

“

hen anti-Semitism is everywhere, it is nowhere. And when every anti-Zionist is an anti-Semite, we no longer know how to recognize the real thing--the concept of anti-Semitism loses its significance — Brian Klug

”

“

People of goodwill who support the Palestinians resent being falsely accused of being anti-Semites. — Brian Klug

”

I say the quote on the left for the following reasons: a) it covers more ground taking on both the anti-Zionism = anti-Semitism question as well as making the point that misusing the term anti-Semitism threatens to make it easier for real anti-Semitism. b) Klug ends his essay in the Nation with the quote on the left - writers often conclude on their stronger point so this suggests that Klug himself thinks this is a strong quote. c) on the other hand, the journal that published the essay from which the quote on the right comes used two other quotes as pullquotes over this one suggesting they didn't see it as particularly strong. d) the quote on the right doesn't really make an argument, it just expresses a complaint wheras the quote on the left summarizes Klug's main point quite powerfully.

Looking at their contributions the two editors who have expressed a preference for the quote on the right both seem to disagree with Klug's arguments so I'd like to hear what people who agree with Klug or are neutral think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tira_Massu (talk • contribs)

Don't come here assuming you know what anyone thinks, or that because someone has a POV you disagree with, they can't write and can't recognize good writing.

I assume Tira Massu (talk · contribs) is the same person as Tira Masu (talk · contribs), but you lost your password, as they often do. SlimVirgin 22:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I assume Tira Massu (talk · contribs) is also the same person as Baron de Montesquieu (talk · contribs). Another password no doubt sadly lost. :'-( Jayjg 23:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a conflict of interest to have someone who disagrees with a writer decide which part of their argument should be highlighted, even if they have the best intentions as I'm sure you do. I'd like to hear the thoughts of people who either agree with Klug or are neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tira_Massu (talk • contribs)

It's not a conflict of interest; it's called being a Wikipedian. If you don't know what that means, please find another website to assume bad faith on. SlimVirgin 00:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised that Jayjg didn't beat me to this: please remember Misplaced Pages:Civility and Assume good faith. --WassermannNYC 04:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not a matter of good or bad faith; it's a matter of good or bad edition. The quote "When anti-Semitism is everywhere, it is nowhere. And when every anti-Zionist is an anti-Semite, we no longer know how to recognize the real thing--the concept of anti-Semitism loses its significance" is much more powerful and representative of the author's thougt than the timid Klug pullquote currently used in the article. I favor substituting the former for the latter, so that readers will grasp at first glance the extent and depth of Klug's convictions, which is what a pullquote is useful for in the first place. --Abenyosef 02:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It probably won't surprise anyone to learn that I support inclusion of the first pull-quote, on the grounds that it is (i) more comprehensive, (ii) a better representation of Klug's views, and (iii) of greater relevance to the subject matter. CJCurrie 01:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, it seems to better reflect the depth of his views. —Ashley Y 01:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think either quote is "stronger". They're both good quotes ("good" in the sense that they sum up a particular point of view of relevance to the article), which say slightly different things. It's a pretty sad state of affairs that there should be lengthy argument over which to use: Assume good faith has long since disappeared from this article... Given a choice, I would go with the former ("When anti-Semitism is everywhere...") for better representing Klug's views and because the point being made in the second quote ("People of goodwill...") is handled easily in the text anyway. Bondegezou 14:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I changed it. —Ashley Y 20:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

"Jewish symbols"?

Well, given that my last request for term clarification regarding "Islamism" was ignored, I'll try again...could someone please enlighten as what what the phrase "Jewish symbols" found in the opening sentence means? I tried to temporary patch this idiotic, vague, and useless phraseology but was immediately reverted by the article's babysitter/guard at the time. What gives? --WassermannNYC 03:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It refers, for example, to synagogues being burned, to the Star of David being portrayed intertwined with the swastika, to Jewish cemeteries being sprayed with graffiti, and so on. Why is that hard to understand? SlimVirgin 04:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Look at Image:United Koalition of War criminals.jpg for a typical example. AnonMoos 04:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The "New antisemitism" is not all PHYSICAL though is what I'm trying to say, much of it is more 'intellectual' theorizing -- this nebulous phrase implies actual physical desecration/destruction of physical and visible "Jewish symbols" like synagogues, cemeteries, etc., yet the "New antisemitism" is, according to this article, more 'intellectual' conspiracies rather than blowing up synagogues, as I've said. And what of the increased verbal and physical harassment of Jews in Europe, the Middle East, and elsewhere (is this symbolic fighting)? Conspiracy theorizing of powerful Jews behind the scenes (are these symbolic conspiracy theories)? Virulent criticism of Israel (anti-Zionism) and America (anti-Americanism), with Jews as the supreme "puppeteers" supposedly behind the scenes (symbolic global hegemony)? Anti-globalization and antisemitism (is this symbolic dislike of globalization, attributed to Jews)? Antisemitism due to supposed Jewish manipulation of financial markets (is this symbolic anti capitalism combined with Jew baiting)? Per the article header, these are all considered to be part of the new antisemitism, yet they aren't actual physical "attacks" on Jewish symbols as the vague phrase "Jewish symbols" seems to imply. Or are these non-physical but nevertheless supposedly antisemitic "attacks" also "symbols" or "symbolic" too? --WassermannNYC 04:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Please read the sentence: "New antisemitism is the concept of an international resurgence of attacks on Jewish symbols, as well as the acceptance of antisemitic beliefs and their expression in public discourse, coming from three political directions: the political left, far-right, and Islamism." That covers the attacks on symbols, physical and otherwise, and the conspiracy theories and other things you mentioned. The only point not covered are the physical assaults. SlimVirgin 04:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Brian Klug, one of the people who denies that there is such a thing as a "new antisemitism," has acknowledged several physical assaults in recent years but denies that they are either "new antisemitism" or "old antisemitism":

He accepts that there is reason for the Jewish community to be concerned, citing the truck-bombing of two synagogues in Istanbul, an arson attack on an Orthodox Jewish school in Paris, the reappearance of anti-Semitic slogans during demonstrations opposing the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and the increase in conspiracy theories involving Jews.

There have been many other physical manifestations of anti-Jewish or anti-Israeli sentiment in recent years, such as vandalism of Jewish cemeteries. This is not mere rhetoric. Dino 19:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The "New antisemitism" in South Korea? -- New York Times Article

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- Korean-American community leaders said they plan to launch a protest against the publisher of a popular South Korean comic book that contains anti-Semitic images.

One comic strip in the book shows a man climbing a hill and then facing a brick wall with a Star of David and "STOP" sign in front. "The final obstacle to success is always a fortress called Jews," a translation says.

Another strip shows a newspaper, magazine, TV and radio with the description: "In a word, American public debate belongs to the Jews, and it's no exaggeration to say that U.S. media are the voice of the Jews."

...article continued...

LA Koreans Angry at Anti-Jewish Cartoon

--172.128.25.32 03:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

More ---> Koreans protest anti-Semitic comics -- Anti-Semitic comic book in Korea stirs anger in the U.S. -- Anti-Semitic cartoons spur outrage --172.145.1.171 01:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like old antisemitism to me. // Liftarn

The Yale survey

The description of the Yale survey about anti-Israel attitudes and antisemitism needs to be improved. On the one hand, relatively unimportant details are given, such as the breakdown by gender, age, etc.

On the other hand, one important conclusion is omitted: that the connection holds true only for 56% of EXTREME detractors of Israel, while MODERATE critics of the country are not antisemitic by a 3-to-1 ratio. In my view, this is a figure that deserves to be cited.

Also, the description is misleading in that it links selected questions from both questionnaires in the survey; and the selection is disingenuous (only the most extreme questions are quoted).

The survey is, thus, slightly misrepresented here. I'm fixing it accordingly. --Abenyosef 13:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It is the extreme views that are relevant, and the claim that criticism of Israel is antisemitic is a straw man that both sides deny. It obviously doesn't belong. Jayjg 02:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Jay, I wish you would stop characterizing the one side of the debate as nothing more than fighting straw men. A huge question in this issue is "Where does criticism of Israel become antisemitic." Please see the entire section on the Klug-Wistrich correspondence, for instance, particularly the first sentence:

In correspondence with Klug, Robert Wistrich, Neuburger Professor of European and Jewish history at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and director of its International Center for the Study of Antisemitism — who also testified in February 2006 to the British parliamentary inquiry — responds that his own litmus test of when criticism of Israel becomes antisemitism is when the critic wishes to dismantle the Jewish state without calling for the dismantling of other states; demonizes Israel; brands it "Nazi" or "racist"; or relies on classic antisemitic stereotypes: for example, the "Jewish Lobby."

So demonization of Israel, what exactly does that mean? Does speaking of Israeli apartheid count? Or calling for the dismantling of the Jewish state, even, what does that mean? Does it include advocates of a binational state, for instance? Please check out the rest of the section for much more of the same. "What we have seen in recent years is indeed a new form of anti-Semitism operating under a humanist façade which (falsely) pillories Israel and Jews as being inherently 'racist'." Etc. This is not a straw man, to say "Ok, but fair criticism of Israel is still fair." More important, though, is the simple fact that these bodies do not see the clarification as addressing straw men, since they keep on making it. If there is a straw man argument here, I'd suggest it is indeed your suggestion, that opponents of NAS accuse Wistrich et al of calling any criticism of Israel antisemitic. To the same extent Wistrich et al don't make that argument, the fact is that nobody accuses them of making that argument either. What NAS opponents argue is that Wistrich et al conflate the issues in a manner which stifles fair debate. Not all debate, but some amount of reasonable and fair debate. It's still an important argument. But again, when the sources keep acknowledging it, it's simply not for us to cherry-pick their statements and leave that out. Mackan79 05:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the concept that "NAS proponents don't claim that criticism of Israel is itself antisemitic" is being used disingenuously. Of course, NAS proponents believe that saying that Israel is too soft on terrorists is legitimate criticism, but that's not what Kaplan and Small are talking about.

Kaplan and Small prove, by way of statistical survey, that many people who believe either that (a) Israel intentionally targets civilians or that (b) Palestinian terrorism is justified or that (c) Israel is responsible for the conflict or that (d) Israel is committing apartheid are not antisemitic. In fact, a large majority (65% to 35%) of people who believe THREE of these propositions to be true are not antisemitic, and only those who believe ALL FOUR propositions to be true (who constitute less than 1% of those surveyed) are antisemitic by a 56% to 44% majority.

Now NAS proponents do not claim that ANY of the four propositions is legitimate criticism of Israel. It's not true that both sides agree that a person can claim that Israel is an apartheid state and still not be antisemitic. NAS proponents claim that these people are antisemitic, and Kaplan and Small prove they're not necessarily so.

So we must quote Kaplan and Small's conclusions because they're talking of a type of criticism of Israel that is not considered legitimate by "the other side." --Abenyosef 19:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

We need to be cautious about accepting surveys at face value. People are well aware that undisguised expressions of antisemitism are not acceptable in today's society. Even in a confidential survey, they may not admit that they harbor such feelings. But opposing Israeli government policy is socially acceptable. In some circles, it's very vogue. And it may be used as a socially acceptable camouflage for genuine antisemitic beliefs. Dino 19:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Political term

This is clearly a political term. It doesn't just mean "any recent anti-semitism". As the article says:

"The term has entered common usage to refer to what some writers describe as a wave of antisemitism that escalated, particularly in Western Europe, after the Second Intifada in 2000, the failure of the Oslo accords, and the September 11, 2001 attacks. The concept is used to distinguish this wave from classical antisemitism, which was largely associated with the political right."

—Ashley Y 22:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide some reliable source which states that "New antisemitism" is a "pejorative political term", per policy? Thanks. Jayjg 22:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not necessary, it's clearly a term with a defined political meaning. —Ashley Y 22:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You can't extend that to calling it a "pejorative political term" -that's OR. <<-armon->> 22:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

So you would say that it's a political term, but not pejorative? —Ashley Y 22:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a concept, and a description of a phenomenon. Jayjg 22:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

And yet the term specifically describes a particular alleged "wave of antisemitism", according to the article, and not just any recent anti-Semitism. That makes it a political term, surely? Armon seemed to imply that he didn't disagree with that. —Ashley Y 22:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, if you describe a wave of antisemitism, that's suddenly a political term? Anyway, contrary to your claim, you need reliable sources which state "New antisemitism" is a "pejorative political term". Jayjg 23:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

If you give it a particular name to identify it, then rather obviously yes. That's why it's called a "term" in the article. Here's a little test that should make it clear: would it be appropriate to rename the article "Antisemitism in the 21st century" or "Post-Second Intifada antisemitism" or "Post-Oslo antisemitism" or anything else you felt was a description? Clearly no, because those are not the terms being used. It's specifically the political term "new antisemitism". —Ashley Y 23:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with WP:ATT; it's one of Misplaced Pages's two fundamental content policies. Jayjg 23:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

One doesn't need attribution for the obvious. —Ashley Y 23:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

All controversial claims need attribution, particularly bogus ones like this one. Jayjg 00:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Needed or not, attribution abounds. This should be enough, and there's more where that came from. Ashley's accurate edit goes in.--G-Dett 00:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

And, of course, out it goes again. Please review WP:ATT. Jayjg 00:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Is antisemitism a pejorative? Tom Harrison 00:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Do any of the provided sources (or anyone) that refer to something as "new antisemitism" not mean it pejoratively? —Ashley Y 00:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Anything which someone feels is inaccurately applied can be viewed a "pejorative". This doesn't automatically make the term a pejorative. Controversy about whether it truly exists, that it's actually "old" antisemitism, or "just" anti-Zionism, is irrelavant. <<-armon->> 00:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see the problem. "Pejorative" does not imply "inaccurate", only disapproval. I think you'll agree that those referring to some phenomenon as "new antisemitism" are disapproving of that phenomenon? —Ashley Y 00:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually the problem is that you must abide by WP:ATT. Jayjg 00:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, please review WP:ATT. Jayjg 00:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

One doesn't need attribution for the obvious. —Ashley Y 00:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material. It's right at the top of the policy. I keep asking you to read it. Jayjg 00:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

But you seem to have stopped actually challenging it? Instead you are arguing "It needs attribution because I challenge it, and I challenge it because it needs attribution". —Ashley Y 00:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

What on earth are you going on about? I've challenged it from the start, as have others. The category is not applicable to "New antisemitism". Jayjg 00:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"New antisemitism" is clearly both a political term (since it is an established identifying name for one particular phenomenon), and pejorative, as I pointed out. So the category is indeed applicable. —Ashley Y 00:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You need to learn the difference between an assertion and an attribution. I know the words are superficially similar, but they mean very different things. Obviously people disagree with your claim, so attribute it, per policy. Jayjg 01:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ashley's edit has been sourced. What is all this nonsense about WP:ATT? And Slim, on what grounds have you again deleted the category?--G-Dett 01:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. Which source described New antisemitism as a "pejorative political term"? Jayjg 01:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Which source used that exact phrase? None that I know of. Is that where you're setting the bar? Are all/any of the items in that list cited to sources using that exact phrase? --G-Dett 01:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Not only did none of the sources use that exact phrase, but none of the sources provided said anything close to it. As for the other items in the category, I have no doubt they're poorly sourced and inherently POV as well. That's exactly why the List of political epithets article was deleted as well, though you did your best to try to keep it, and somehow insist antisemitism was a political epithet. Then your buddy Liftarn tried to get it in via the backdoor, only to have his POV foiled again. Now you're taking a disruptive third kick at this can via a silly category. At this point you appear to be editing solely for this purpose, and I don't plan to put up with much more of this. Jayjg 02:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Two editors who agree on one point and never at any other time so much as cross paths aren't "buddies," Jay. Please review my input to political epithets at a more sober and less paranoid moment. Maybe you need to take a little break.--G-Dett 02:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Please review WP:CIVIL and WP:ATT. Perhaps you should go back on the break you were taking, you seem to be here only for one purpose. Jayjg 02:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Your accusations are unhelpful, as are your repeated mentioning of policies we are already familiar and in compliance with. —Ashley Y 02:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. It really does poison the groundwater here, Jay. Try to exercise some restraint.--G-Dett 02:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

If you were actually familiar with WP:ATT, then you wouldn't insist that you can insert controversial claims without attribution. If you were familiar with WP:CIVIL, then you wouldn't assert that other editors needed to be "more sober and less paranoid", or needed to "try to exercise some restraint". In order to comply with WP:AGF, I must assume that you are not familiar with WP:CIVIL and WP:ATT, rather than other, less savory, conclusions. Jayjg 03:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I find it surprising that new antisemitism would be pejorative, but not antisemitism. That seems unreasonable to me. Is it because it applies to the left and Muslims instead of to the right and Christians? Tom Harrison 00:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it's because "antisemitism" has been a part of the language for a hundred and fifty years or so, whereas "new antisemitism" is a recent coinage. "Antisemite" can indeed be used as an epithet, but there's a pretty stable consensus about the meaning of the word "antisemitism" and the phenomenon it names. "New antisemitism" has been used almost entirely within the context of contentious political debate about Israel's human-rights record, so the term is polarizing and doesn't enjoy widespread legitimacy; whereas "antisemitism"'s legitimacy has been codified and stabilized by extensive use that transcends this or that historical moment or political debate.--G-Dett 01:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I have not seen new antisemitism used as a pejorative, yet people want to list it. I don't see neocon listed as a pejorative political term, yet I have often seen neocon used as a pejorative. The whole category looks arbitrary to me. What is the criteria for inclusion? Tom Harrison 02:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

OK Slim, discuss. Why are you removing a sourced category link?--G-Dett 01:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Because there is no reliable source that describes it as a "pejorative political term". Please review WP:ATT. Jayjg 01:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop telling experienced editors to review basic protocol, Jay. It's insulting, and it wastes everyone's time.--G-Dett 02:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

And here you are again arguing "it needs attribution because I challenge it, and I challenge it because it needs attribution". In fact, it's completely obvious that it's both a political term and pejorative, and you don't seem to be actually offering any arguments against that. —Ashley Y 01:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. It's not a pejorative political term, it's a description of modern phenomena. The "pejorative political term" claim has been challenged by many editors, the "sources" brought do not even claim that it is a "pejorative political term", and you need to observe WP:ATT, rather than repeating yourself. Instead of endless repetitive assertions, source your false claim and original research, per policy. I don't think I can be any clearer. Jayjg 01:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Jay, are you insisting upon a source who uses that exact phrase, "pejorative political epithet"? And when someone returns successfully from that pointless scavenger-hunt, will you move then move the goalpost, raise the bar?--G-Dett 02:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm insisting you stop disrupting Misplaced Pages, and start following policy. This is the third time, in a third way, that you and your POV-buddies have attempted to insist that "antisemite" is a political epithet, and we're getting tired of it. Jayjg 02:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, please don't make personal attacks. They add nothing to the discussion but merely lose you credibility. —Ashley Y 02:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Please re-read both WP:NPA and WP:ATT. Jayjg 02:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You really are getting very nasty here, Jay. Do stop sending experienced editors back to basic protocol. Do stop pretending editors who've never so much as crossed paths before are "buddies," especially when you have been team-edit-warring for years now, as every single person on this page knows very well. And do stop stubbornly pretending that scrupulously cited sources don't say what they obviously do say, in the plainest of English.--G-Dett 02:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You brought one source that didn't even use the term "pejorative". You and Liftarn worked together to insert "Antisemite" into the "List of political epithets". Ashley Y keeps insisting that he can insert controversial claims and ignore WP:ATT, because "it's obvious", and you, because it's "common sense". All of you still need to review WP:ATT. Jayjg 03:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The "controversy" here is apparently manufactured, since you're not actually making any arguments against it besides the circular one, as I have repeatedly pointed out. —Ashley Y 03:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not merely a description, as both G-Dett and I have pointed out, since it refers specifically to the alleged "wave of antisemitism that escalated, particularly in Western Europe, after the Second Intifada in 2000". (And yes, there are plenty of sources that use it as a term rather than a description.) But you refuse to discuss that. Instead, you endlessly repeat your argument that it needs attribution because it is challenged, circularly since it is only challenged on the basis that it needs attribution.

If you have a challenge to the categorisation that doesn't depend on a need for attribution on the basis that is challenged, I'd like to hear it. Otherwise WP:ATT simply doesn't apply. —Ashley Y 02:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:ATT always applies. It's fundamental policy. You can't do away with it by claiming "it's obvious". Stop repeating yourself, abide by policy instead. Jayjg 02:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:ATT refers to material that is challenged, as you quoted. I don't think that includes material that is challenged solely for not being attributed. I keep raising this point precisely because you keep mentioning the policy. If you'd like to move forward from here, it's up to you. —Ashley Y 02:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ashley Y, New antisemitism is clearly a sociological phenomenon, not a 'pejorative political term'. If you want to claim it is the latter, you need to provide proper attribution from reliable sources that back up your view. That's policy, you can't get around it. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It may very well be a sociological phenomenon, but its status as a political term doesn't negate that. There are plenty of sources that use it as a political term. —Ashley Y 02:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not challenged because it needs attribution, rather attribution is the only method of proving that the assertion that it is indeed a pejorative political term isn't merely your original research. On what basis should we accept it? Tewfik 02:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, are you doubting that it is a political term, or doubting that it is pejorative? —Ashley Y 02:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you can't reverse the onus of proof. WP:ATT is quite clear. Jayjg 02:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Tewfik, are you doubting that it is a political term, or doubting that it is pejorative? —Ashley Y 03:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

On the basis of common sense, Tewfik. And failing that, the reliable sources provided. As well as others, if you wish.--G-Dett 02:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

However, none has yet been provided for the claim that it is a "pejorative political term", neither common sense, nor reliable sources. Jayjg 02:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It's common sense, as we've pointed out. —Ashley Y 03:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I've already explained that assertion and attribution are similar words, but they mean very different things. WP:ATT does not say "please ignore this policy if editors continually insist their controversial claims are 'common sense'. Jayjg 03:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Likewise it does not say "common sense needs to be attributed, even if editors continually insist that it is controversial without providing any argument". —Ashley Y 03:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

True, but there's no challenge here apart from the circular one that it is challenged because it needs attribution, and it needs attribution because it is challenged (as I have repeatedly pointed out). —Ashley Y 03:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material. The policy is written that way for a reason; otherwise people who insist on inserting their own original research come along and say "yeah, but in this case it's common sense, and you haven't come up with any good arguments (i.e. arguments that I accept) to keep it out". Jayjg 03:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ashley, Jayjg's right, you are clearly shifting the burden of proof. <<-armon->> 03:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

PinchasC, NAS is "clearly a sociological phenomenon" to some reliable sources, and clearly a political ploy to others. It's not for Misplaced Pages editors to declare one side of this debate a winner.--G-Dett 02:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett, which sources say that it is a pejorative political term? --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This has gone beyond ridiculous. Just provide a RS cite which states that it is a pejorative political term! If one can't be produced, then the proponents of the cat need to drop it. <<-armon->> 03:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with above. Unless a source is provided, this is OR and against Misplaced Pages guidelines. Elizmr 03:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

A quick scan and I count thirteen links to WP:ATT. This has to be some sort of record. Haber 03:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It must be; and yet I fear even more will be required. Jayjg 03:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, why do you keep replying to this joker? It's obvious that you win. Haber 03:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I keep hoping he'll get it, sooner or later. Jayjg 03:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

To say that it's a pejorative political term is to imply that it's merely an insult and lacks other content. Even many of its opponents wouldn't agree with this. They argue that the term may be misused and may be applied too broadly; or they argue that, though it correctly describes a new form of prejudice, it's not antisemitism. But I haven't seen any authoritative source argue that it's only and always an insult. SlimVirgin 03:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the problem, then. If that were true I would not argue for the categorisation. But I don't believe either the words "pejorative" or "political term" offer any judgement on whether it's true or not. Do you deny that it's a political term? And surely "pejorative" simply means "disapproving", which it clearly is? —Ashley Y 03:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:ATT. Jayjg 03:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"To say that it's a pejorative political term is to imply that it's merely an insult and lacks other content." What gross nonsense. Few if any of the terms on that list fit this definition. Few if any would clear your standards of attribution. This is POV-pushing of the most embarrassing sort.--G-Dett 04:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not a list, it's a category. The list was deleted because, in fact, few if any of the items on it could be properly attributed. And you're right, trying to put New antisemitism in the "Pejorative political terms" category is "POV-pushing of the most embarrassing sort", so I'd appreciate it if you and Ashley would stop doing it. Jayjg 04:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is now moot, since the category has itself been deleted. —Ashley Y 10:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Sources which clearly state that "New antisemitism" is a "pejorative political epithet"

Please place any reliable sources which clearly state that "New antisemitism" is a "pejorative political epithet" here, quoting the words of the source that make that specific claim. Thanks. Jayjg 03:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Aaronovitch, David. "The New Anti-Semitism", The Observer, June 22, 2003.
Quote him describing "New antisemitism" as a "Pejorative political epithet" please. Jayjg 03:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Arenson, David & Grynberg, Simon. Anti-Globalization and the New Anti-Semitism.
Quote them describing "New antisemitism" as a "Pejorative political epithet" please. Jayjg 03:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Cook, Jonathan. "The 'New Anti-Semitism' and Nuclear War", antiwar.com, September 25, 2006.
Reliable sources, please, not polemicists on propaganda sites. Jayjg 03:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Curthoys, Ned. "A new anti-Semitism: American discourse since September 11 has seen a reinvention of the eternal anti-semitism thesis applied to critics of Israel," Arena Magazine, April 1, 2004.
Quote him describing "New antisemitism" as a "Pejorative political epithet" please. Jayjg 03:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Gordon, Neve. "Seeing through the 'new anti-Semitism': Norman Finkelstein critiques Israel's human rights record and Alan Dershowitz's defense of it," National Catholic Reporter, October 14, 2005.
Quote him describing "New antisemitism" as a "Pejorative political epithet" please, and try to find less polemical sources. Jayjg 03:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
In Jay's idiolect, "less polemical sources" means sources who push his POV. If we truly avoided polemical sources, articles like this one would of course cease to exist.--G-Dett 18:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Iganski, Paul & Kosmin, Barry. (eds) A New Antisemitism? Debating Judeophobia in 21st Century Britain, Profile Books Limited, 2003. ISBN 1-86197-651-8
Quote them describing "New antisemitism" as a "Pejorative political epithet" please. Jayjg 03:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

(more available on request) —Ashley Y 03:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Any reliable ones that actually describe "New antisemitism" as a "pejorative political epithet"? Those would be most helpful, if you can find them. Jayjg 03:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I object to this. I did not place these references in this section. I created a new section, as you requested. —Ashley Y 03:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Are you then admitting you couldn't find any sources that clearly state that "New antisemitism" is a "pejorative political epithet"? Just say the word, and we're done. Jayjg 04:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

This is the wrong bar. There are plenty of sources that actually use "new antisemitism" as a pejorative political epithet. —Ashley Y 03:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

In your opinion, of course. Jayjg 04:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ashley, I've looked at your David Aaronovitch article, but can't see where he says that. Can you give us the quote? SlimVirgin 04:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Please examine this edit that you made before asking me to back up claims that I am not making and I don't think are relevant. —Ashley Y 04:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:ATT is the only relevant thing here; your own original research is certainly not relevant. Jayjg 04:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Bad faith edit

Jayjg, I can no longer assume good faith, after you deliberately deleted the section I created (at your suggestion, no less) and moved the references to a different section, so as to make it imply something else. This edit was clearly done in bad faith. —Ashley Y 04:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think good faith was lost when you refused to attribute your claims, even after being asked 15 times to do so, then when you finally came up with "sources", they didn't actually make your claim either. WP:ATT is policy. Abide by it. Jayjg 04:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I explained 15 times that attribution wasn't necessary, but you refused to discuss it. This accusation is also in bad faith, since the sources I came up with certainly did make my claim, but you deliberately edited this talk page to make it look like I was attempting to make some other claim, which I don't think is relevant. —Ashley Y 04:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ashley, attribution is necessary because a number of editors are challenging what you say. I've checked the first source you provided but it doesn't seem to support your view. Could you show me where it does, please? SlimVirgin 04:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This may have been accidental, but this edit suggests that you're not serious. —Ashley Y 04:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You cannot "explain" that policy is "not necessary". Stop wasting time here, you've already wasted a huge amount of it. Jayjg 04:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You're free to stop editing whenever you like if you feel your time is being wasted. For myself, I can hardly argue with someone who deliberately misrepresents me by editing the talk page. —Ashley Y 04:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It's time to stop arguing and time to start attributing. Jayjg 04:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I have already attributed use of the phrase as a political epithet, but you have misrepresented me as attempting to do something else, which I don't believe is relevant. —Ashley Y 04:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

What nonsense. Which reliable source says "New antisemitism" is a "political epithet"? And it better not be "User:Ashley Y insists it is, based on his analysis of the way he sees it being used. And User:G-Dett agrees with him." Review WP:ATT. Jayjg 04:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I provided a list of sources that clearly use "new antisemitism" as a political epithet, exactly as my section said. But you deleted the section and moved the sources to a different section, as a straw man, and in bad faith. —Ashley Y 04:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

According to whom is "new antisemitism" being used as a "political epithet". Who makes that specific claim?. Jayjg 04:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Ashley. A gross breach of good faith on Jay's part, and not the first.--G-Dett 04:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

LOL! I am shocked, shocked to find you agreeing with Ashley on this. Jayjg 04:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, do you care anything at all for good faith? —Ashley Y 04:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Ashley Y, do you care anything at all for Misplaced Pages policy? Particularly WP:ATT? Jayjg 04:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course, and the categorisation is in compliance with it, as I have repeatedly explained, no matter how many times you quote it. But it is impossible to have a discussion with you when you deliberately misrepresent me. —Ashley Y 04:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Name names, Ashley. Which reliable sources specifically state that "New antisemitism" is a "pejorative political term". Name the people, and quote them saying it. Jayjg 04:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

As I have explained, that's the wrong bar. —Ashley Y 04:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:ATT is the bar. If you can't attribute the claim to a reliable source, then it can't go in. Perhaps you should post your personal views on a blog or message board somewhere. Jayjg 05:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, I can no longer discuss this with you until the matter of your bad faith edit (per WP:TALK#Behavior that is unacceptable) is resolved. —Ashley Y 05:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Good excuse. Jayjg 05:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you have anything to say on the subject of the edit? Do you believe it was appropriate to misrepresent me in this way? —Ashley Y 05:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

See fallacy of many questions. Jayjg 05:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

How does that apply, exactly? Is that a justification of your edit? —Ashley Y 05:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

~~Image:Beating 2Da 2Ddead 2Dhorse.gif|thumbnail|left|Don't be that guy~~ <<-armon->> 05:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Armon, I don't know if you've ever had your edits on a talk page thoroughly misrepresented, including a second time after reverting the edit, but it poisons the whole discussion. I believe that was Jayjg's intent. —Ashley Y 05:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I've struck out the image. It referred to the moot issue of the category, but complaints about Jay's "talk-page vandalism" are equally specious IMO, and off-topic in regards to the article. <<-armon->> 23:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, do you have anything to say on the subject of your edit here, which you marked as minor? Was it deliberate or accidental? —Ashley Y 05:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Armon, "beating a dead horse" means artificial continuation of a discussion that has already been resolved. It clearly doesn't apply to the matter of Jay's talk-page vandalism, because – though clear evidence of it has been presented – the problem has yet to be discussed, justified, or even addressed, much less resolved.--G-Dett 18:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Would you all quit the trolling, please? A substantive question was asked about content, and as usual wasn't answered. Stick to content, stop messing around with the talk page, stop posting these endless barbs, and just learn how to write properly and use sources. The rest is incredibly tiresome and childish. SlimVirgin

Slim, as Ashley pointed out, the content issue has been made moot. The issue of talk page vandalism, however, has not.--G-Dett 19:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett, I think you may be mistaking Jay's refactoring of the talk page to allow the claims to be discussed; in doing so, on his initial edit, he appeared to have inadvertently left off part of Ashley's comments, which he immediately restored. No vandalism occurred. --Leflyman 18:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Leflyman, look at this edit. As you can see I originally provided sources under the heading 'Sources which clearly use or discuss "new antisemitism" as a pejorative political epithet'. Jayjg removed the heading and moved the sources to his own heading 'Sources which clearly state that "New antisemitism" is a "pejorative political epithet"', and then proceeded to discuss them as if I had put them there myself. Since which of the two was more applicable was what was disputed, this was done in bad faith. —Ashley Y 19:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Refactoring a heading is hardly a call to arms, nor "bad faith"; your "use or discuss..." and "which clearly state that..." are semantically the same assertion. Please stop obfuscating the actual, relevant issue that none of the sources you listed actually say what you claim. Although requested many times, you didn't provide any validity to the assertion that "New antisemitism" was a pejorative term. How would it even be used an an epithet: "He's a New Antisemite" or "Her book is Newly Antisemitic"? (That's a rhetorical question, by the way -- no need for made-up silly epithets.) Now granted, Jay was a bit aggressive in reply, but that's a different matter entirely, and has as much to do with the frustration of conflictive discussions such as this. --Leflyman 20:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

So if someone uses "new antisemitism" as a pejorative political epithet (which I argue that several sources do), is that the same as clearly stating that it is? —Ashley Y 20:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you may be confusing your personal interpretations of how the term is used with the needs for attribution. This is perhaps the critical part that wasn't being properly explained: an editor's own opinions on a particular subject in an article are not relevant -- insertion of such interpretation is Original Research -- but whether a reliable, published source can be found that specifically says what we believe is what's critical. That's likely why Jayjg and SlimVirgin were frustrated: you may believe it to be used as a political epithet, but you had no actual source which said it is used as such. As a silly example, I might claim that "Ashley" is a name for vacuous American teenage girls -- and point to Ashley Olsen, as well as numerous Myspace profiles that in my opinion justify this interpretation, but I suspect you'd disagree with such an assertion. (No insult intended!)--Leflyman 21:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

But was it appropriate for them to move sources from my "uses pejoratively" to their own "states that it is pejorative" as if I had put them there myself? Bear in mind that it was Jayjg who suggested I create a new section.. —Ashley Y 21:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

GA nom

I'm tempted to fail this nomination as this article is being rocked by edit warring (I'm really surprised to see such an active discussion); it looks nowhere the stability required in WP:WIAGA (criteria 5). However, I don't like to pass/fail articles, so I'll let someone else judge. It may die down by the time that someone gets around to look over it. Hbdragon88 05:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I assumed the undated GA nominee template was left over from the previous nomination. —Ashley Y 06:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't going off the GAC list - I just got here and saw that a {{GAnominee}} template. Did someone fail it and forget to replace it with {{FailedGA}}? Hbdragon88 06:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is a FailedGA as well as the GAnominee. —Ashley Y 06:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah. It was nominated on 21 February 2007 and has not yet been acted on. Hbdragon88 06:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ashley, please answer this question ...

... because this is the third time I've asked it. I've looked at the David Aaronovitch article you offered as a source for the term "new antisemitism" being used purely as a pejorative political term, but I can't see where he says that. Can you give us the quote, please? SlimVirgin 18:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I can hardly take you seriously after you misrepesented me on this topic. In any case, since Category:Pejorative political terms has been deleted, this discussion is moot. All that's left is questions about bad-faith behaviour, which are better discussed on user talk pages than here. —Ashley Y 19:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that was lively

What are we arguing about, again? Whether "new antisemitism" is a "pejorative political term"? Henry Kissinger said, "University politics are so bitter precisely because the stakes are so small." Is there room for compromise here? Can we look to Misplaced Pages policy and find a resolution? By golly, we can. If you add something to an article and someone challenges it, you have to provide reliable sourcing. Not something you made up in school one day. If it's "pejorative," then you need to prove that some notable opinion-maker described it as "pejorative," or something similar. Dino 12:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dean, I think the point is moot now because the article on "pejorative political terms" has been deleted. A similar article on "political epithets," which was created 2 1/2 years ago, was similarly deleted by its owners last week when it became clear to them that there was copious reliable-source documentation describing "anti-semite" as a political epithet. The decision was to sink the whole ship rather than letting aboard any ideological impurities.

Your point about small stakes is well-taken. Just so you know, though, one reason there's such debate over something like the term "pejorative political term" is because the more fundamental debate here is whether NAS should be treated as a phenomenon, or as a tendentious and divisive political discourse, or both.--G-Dett 13:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Please quit this outrageous trolling. Everyone is tired of having to read your carping. SlimVirgin 19:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I just checked your contribs again hoping to see an improvement from the last time, but you've still only made 158 edits to articles. From now on, I'm going to remove any posts of yours from this talk page that aren't directly related to content, and if you revert me, I'll request admin intervention. You've been poisoning this page for long enough. SlimVirgin 19:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

What "content" does this latest ad hominem blast from you relate to, Slim?

As long as you're trolling through my history (while ignoring my substantive questions here), you might take a closer look at those 158 article edits. I think you'll find that a great number of them were instantly reverted by you, Jayjg, Isarig, HumusSapiens, et al, accompanied by logically specious and often personally insulting edit summaries, sending me over to the talk-page for endlessly exasperating exchanges with your lock-step POV-crew.

If you wish to have me monitored or filtered or whatever, have some neutral party with credibility do it. You are obviously not in a position to determine which of my comments are substantive, given your personal, ideological, and often visceral opposition to me. Manipulating Ashley's posts in order to alter her meaning was a serious matter, and taking it upon yourself to become my minder and censor will not improve things, Slim.--G-Dett 19:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Slim, G-Dett was just responding to a query. I know your take is not her take, but I don't think the vague threats are very helpful. If you think it's appropriate, you're free to answer Dino's query yourself. If you don't think it's important, you should probably just leave it... —Ashley Y 20:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

(Also, deleting the response to your own attack is hardly fair.) —Ashley Y 20:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

This talk page is only for discussing edits to the article. For everything else, please use the user talk pages, or if necessary dispute resolution. Tom Harrison 20:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Could we be just a little bit nicer to each other, people? Dino 21:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)